Empedocles and His Interpreters: The Four-Element Doxography

Author(s): Peter Kingsley

Source: Phronesis, Vol. 39, No. 3 (1994), pp. 235-254
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182476
Accessed: 09-01-2016 03:12 UTC

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

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

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Empedoclesand his Interpreters:The Four-
ElementDoxography'

PETERKINGSLEY

For over a century the way we understandour surviving sources for

Presocraticphilosophy - and, as a result, the way we understandthe
Presocraticsthemselves- has been dominatedby the workof one scholarin
particular:HermannDiels. Ever since Cherniss published his work on
Aristotle and the Presocraticsin 1935, questionshave often been raised
aboutthe reliabilityof our sourcesas Diels identifiedthem- and above all
aboutthe reliabilityof Aristotlehimself and his successor,Theophrastus.2
Morerecentlydoubthas also been thrownon Diels' reconstruction of those
ancientsources,and of the traditionor traditionsto which they belonged.3
In this paperI will focus on the secondof these two issues, and show what
there is to be learned from re-inspectingone particularstrand of the
evidencethatDiels concernedhimself with. Thatstrandof evidencerelates
to Empedocles'enigmaticequationof his four elementswith gods, and to
the attemptsat workingout this equationin detail which we find in the
ancient 'doxographers':a term invented by Diels to denote Greek and
Roman authors responsible for writing up and preserving the views

l My thanks to Walter Burkert, Bob Sharples, Anne Sheppard and Martin West for
comments and discussion.
2 H. Cherniss,Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy, Baltimore 1935; cf. e.g.

McDiarmid 178-238, Guthrie II, 160, 232-4, 438-9, 444-5, D. O'Brien, Empedocles'
Cosmic Cycle, Cambridge1969, 208-9, J. G. Stevenson,JHS 94, 1974, 138-43, KRS 6,
Osborne91-2, 211, L. G. Westerinkin Proclus, lecteur et interpretedes anciens, ed. J.
Pepin and H. D. Saffrey, Paris 1987, 105-6, Kingsley 1994a with nn. 18-19.
3 Cf. e.g. J. Mejer, Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background, Stuttgart 1978,

3-6, Osborne 187-211, D. T. Runia,Phronesis 34, 1989, 245-69, J. Mansfeld,Studies in

the Historiographyof Greek Philosophy, Assen/Maastricht1990, and A.V. Lebedev in
Philosophie et culture: Actes du XVII'congres mondial de philosophie, ed. V. Cauchy,
III, Montmorency 1988, 813-17. Lebedev is certainly justified in his doubts as to
whethera doxographercalled Aetius even existed; and in this paperthe name 'Aetius' is
simply used, out of deference to convention, to indicate the common source for both
Stobaeus and ps.-Plutarch'sEpitome.
Phronesis 1994. Vol. XXXIX13(AcceptedJanuary 1994)

235

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
supposedlyheld on varioussubjectsby earlierphilosophers.In the process
of this re-examinationit will become clear not only how arbitrarythe
doxographictraditionoften was whendeterminingwhichviews to attribute
to thoseearlierphilosophers,butalso how fault-riddenDiels' reconstruction
of thattraditioncould be. To be moreprecise,it will becomeapparenthow
quickhe was to rejectgood evidencefor Theophrastus'own contributionas
a doxographerwhen that evidence contradictedhis presuppositions;how
insistently he refused to acknowledge the consequences of his own
discovery that the Theophrasteantraditionwas present in the common
source used both by Stobaeusand by the so-called pseudo-Plutarch; and
how easily seducedhe was into alteringancienttexts so as to make them
say what he wanted them to say. It will also become clear that later
doxographictraditions- includingthose preservedin Arabic- represent
Theophrasteanmaterialmore accuratelythan Diels, and modem scholars
misledby him, have realised.

Empedoclesintroduceshis elementsin fragment6 of Diels' collectionby

describingthemas 'roots',and identifyingeach of themwith a god.
Hear first the four roots of all things:
Dazzling Zeus, life-bearingHera, Aidoneus and
Nestis, who moistens the spring of mortalswith her tears.

Nestis here plainly corresponds to Empedocles' element of water; but that is

as far as the agreement goes. For two thousand years the issue has been
disputed as to which of Empedocles' remaining three elements - fire, earth
and air - his other three gods correspond to. On the one hand there were
those in antiquity who claimed that for Empedocles Zeus meant fire, Hera
earth and Aidoneus - which is a poetic name for Hades4- air. On the other,
there were those who agreed that Zeus represents fire but said that Hera
must be air and Hades earth.5It was Diels' opinion that this second view

4Iliad 5.190; Hesiod, Theogony913; Homeric Hymn to Demeter 2.

5 Hera = earth, Hades = air: Heraclitus,Alleg. 24.6-7; Diogenes Laertius8.76 (Emped.
Al); Athenagoras,Legatio 22.1-2; Hippolytus,Ref. 7.29.4-5 (Emped. A33c); Achilles,
Isag. in Arat. phaen. 3, 31.14-16 Maass; ps.-Probus, In Bucol. 6.31, 332.29-334.10
Hagen; Stobaeus, Ecl. I, 121.10-20 Wachsmuth(Emped.A33b).
Hera = air, Hades = earth: ps.-Probus, In Bucol. 6.31, 334.10-335.1 Hagen; ps.-
Plutarch,Epitome 1.3 = Eusebius, Praep. evang. 14.14.6 (Emped. A33a). Hera = air
only: Tzetzes, Exeg. in Iliad. 55.5-6 Hermann(Hera = 'fiery air') and the etymologica
listed in T. Gaisford's Etymologicon Magnum, Oxford 1848, 1241. For the supposed
testimonies of Philodemusand Menandersee below, n. 61.

236

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
goes back to Theophrastus, whom he assumed to be our best possible
source of infonnation on Empedocles or any other Presocratic.
Diels' influence is still visible in the fact that writers of the most recent
full-scale studies of Empedocles are by and large agreed in claiming that the
equation of Zeus with fire, Hera with air and Hades with earth must go back
to Empedocles himself.6 Modem proponents of an ancient tradition, they
are quick to argue that its age is an indication of its reliability - even though
there was more than one tradition in antiquity and both cannot be right. In
fact, as we will see, this interpretationof the Empedoclean fragment does
not go back to Theophrastus at all but is simply a late, Stoicising
innovation. As to the question of which element corresponded to which
divinity according to Empedocles himself, that is an issue we will returnto
later.

II

Diels' argument that the equation of Hera with air and Hades with earth
goes back to Theophrastus is, to outer appearances, very persuasive. The
same is true of his complementary argument that the reverse equation of
Hera with earth and Hades with air was a later corruption of this
Theophrasteantradition: a corruption due to the contaminating influence of
subsequent writers involved in the allegorical interpretation of Homer.
Apart from an isolated query, he has been followed without exception.7
Diels, understandably,placed his trust in Aetius: it was, after all, his great
'discovery' that Aetius' book as he had reconstructed it was based
ultimately on a work by Theophrastus. But, that said, on purely theoretical
grounds the conclusion he arrived at - that what Aetius seems to say on the
matter of Empedocles' elements goes back to Theophrastus - was
extremely risky. The passage which equates Empedocles' Hera with air and
Hades with earth occurs in section 1.3 of Diels' reconstruction of the lost
work supposedly written by Aetius; however, Diels himself had carefully
noted that the origins of this section in particular are very complex. He
warned precisely against jumping to the conclusion that any single passage

6 Guthrie
II, 144-6; Bollack III, 169-74; C. Gallavotti, Empedocle, Milan 1975, 173-4;
Wright 165-6; but cf. G. Imbragugliaet al., IndexEmpedocleus,Genoa 1991, I, 174. The
issue is not addressedin B. Inwood's The Poem of Empedocles (Toronto 1992).
7For his analysis of the relation between the two traditions cf. Dox. 88-99. For
Theophrastusas source of the Hera-air/Hades-earthtradition see also Diels, Kleine
Schriftenzur Geschichteder antikenPhilosophie, Darmstadt1969, 132 and in PPF 108,
repeated e.g. by DK I, 289 (apparatus),Bignone 542-4, Guthrie II, 144, Bollack III,
172-82, Wright 165. The doubt was raised by Mette, 27 n. 2; cf. also Kerschensteiner
124 n. 2.
237

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in it went back to Theophrastus,and emphasisedthe extent to which
Theophrasteanmaterialhad evidently been supplementedand alteredby
being combinedwith extractsfromlaterwriters.8
on the basis of
Thenthereis the passageitself, whichDiels reconstructed
the text as preservedin pseudo-Plutarch's
Epitome:
Empedocles ... posits four elements - fire, aer, water, earth - and two goveming
principles,love and strife, the first of which is unitive, the second separative.This
is what he says: ....

Pseudo-Plutarchgoes on to cite Empedocles' fragment 6, and continues:

By Zeus he means the 'boiling' (zesis) and aither; by life-bearing Hera, aer; by
Aidoneus earth; and by Nestis and the spring of mortals he means sperm and
water.9

The first point to notice is the change in terminology between the

statementsprecedingthe quotationof fragment6 and the statementsthat
follow. Initiallythe four elementsare fire, aer, waterand earth,then they
becomeaither, aer, waterandearth.This differencein terminology- slight
as it may have seemed to Diels - is alreadyenoughto raise the suspicion
thatwe are dealinghere with two separatesources.
Closer examinationconfirms the suspicion. The first listing of the
elements is typical not only of Aristotlebut also of Theophrastus.'? The
secondone, however,revealinglysubstitutesthe termaitherfor fire, which
is a traitthatcan no morebe ascribedto Theophrastus thanto Aristotle- for
whom aither was a fifth elementin additionto fire, aer, waterand earth."
8 Dox. 178-8 1.
9 Epit. 1.3 (Dox. 286al8-287al6; 58.22-59.6 Mau).
'0 For Aristotle see esp. De gen. et corr. 328b31-333al5, Metaph. 983bl8-985b3. For
Theophrastuscf. e.g. Diog. Laert. 8.76 (Emp. Al; see below, ? III), Simplicius, Phys.
25.22 (Emp. A28b; below, n. 13), and De sensibus 7-8, 13-14, 17-18, 22 (Emp. A86).
t This is more than just a matter of general inference from Theophrastus'intimate

relationshipto Aristotle. In Wimmer's edition of Theophrastusthe term aither occurs

only once - in a paraphraseof Anaxagoras(De sensu 59). Plainly Theophrastusavoided
the term with scrupulousconsistency and, one cannot help concluding, deliberately:on
the relatedquestionof whetheror not he chose to postulatea special kind of fire in place
of Aristotle's aither, and of whetheror not we can speak in this case of a 'terminological
difference' between them, see K. Gaiser, Theophrastin Assos, Heidelberg 1985, 79-80
and R. W. Sharples' comments in Aristoteles Werk und Wirkung, Paul Moraux
gewidmet,ed. J. Wiesner,I, Berlin/New York 1985, 577-93, esp. 592-3. No less relevant
is the fact that, in a passage which in its original form almost certainly goes back to
Theophrastus,Empedocles' four elements are listed as fire, water, aither and earth
(ps.-Plutarch,Strom. 10 = Dox. 582.4-5 = DK I, 288.22; on the historyof the passage cf.
Dox. 132, 157-8, also Guthrie II, 196). This clearly suggests that when discussing
Empedocles Theophrastus- just like Aristotle (De gen. et corr. 334a 1-5) - understood
the term aither as referringto the element of air, not fire.

238

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
On the other hand, this second listing of the elements - aither, aer, water,
earth - is typically Stoic.'2
Broader considerations only serve to fill out the picture that is emerging.
The Theophrastean origin of the first passage is in fact guaranteed by the
parallel version preserved in Simplicius.'3 As for the analysis and explan-
ation of Empedocles' divinities that follows the quotation of fragment 6, it
is not only foreign to Theophrastus' terminology but also alien to his
interests: his concern was with matters of physics, not with elaborating on
allegorical details. The designation of fire as aither points, as just noted, to a
writer influenced by Stoicism; interest in allegory and fanciful etymologies
was a hallmark of Stoicism. And then there is the Zeus-zesis etymology.
One ancient writer, Athenagoras, cites this etymology as being specifically
Stoic; as Diels has pointed out, Athenagoras had access to relatively good
sources of information on Greek philosophy, and in this particular case
recent research has shown him to be perfectly correct.'4Even without Diels'
own warnings about the heterogeneous composition of this particular
section in Aetius, it could hardly be plainer that an original passage by
Theophrastus has been either supplemented or extensively rewritten by a
later, Stoicising source.

III

From this complex picture we can turn to a much simpler one. In his section
on Empedocles, Diogenes Laertius records that
these were his opinions: there are four elements - fire, water, earth,aer - and love
which brings together, and strife which separates.This is what he says: ....
He then quotes from fragment 6, and adds that Empedocles is here
referringto fire as Zeus, to earth as Hera, to aer as Hades and to water as Nestis.

Once again, the Theophrastean origin of the first part of this passage is
2 Cf. e.g. SVF II, 143.40-41, 180.10-11, 185.12-14 and the furtherrefs. in H. Lewy,

Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy2,Paris 1978, 430; Philo, De conf. ling. 156 and De
praem. et poen. 36 (yrv xal O6wQ xai &cQaxct aLOEQca); M. Lapidge, Phronesis 18,
1973, 254-9.
1" Phys. 25.21-26 = Theophrastus,fr. 3 Diels (Dox. 478.1-6) = FHSG 227A, I, 412-13.
For the Theophrasteanorigin of this passage cf. H. Usener, Analecta Theophrastea,
Leipzig 1858, 26 = Ki. Schr. I, Leipzig 1912, 72, and the comments by McDiarmid,
206-11 and Osborne,90-2. Comparealso Diog. Laert.8.76, a passage which, as we will
see (below, ? 11I), almost certainlyderives from Theophrastusas well.
14 Athenagoras,Legatio 6.4, 22.4; for his sources cf. Dox. 4-5 with n. 43 below. For the

Zeus-zesis etymology cf. A. B. Cook, Zeus I, Cambridge 1914, 31 n. 3 and especially

Mette 18-19, 22-9.

239

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
guaranteedby Simplicius;Diels himself was well awareof the fact.5 But
this time the style is consistentand harmonious.Fire is referredto both
times as fire. Whatis more, the brevitywith which the four divinitiesare
explained- in passingratherthanas a pointworthany reflectionin its own
right16- is entirelyconsonantwith Theophrastus' methodandinterests.And
once again, further considerationsonly serve to confirm the initial
impression.It is virtuallycertainthat the quotationfrom fragment6 also
goes back to Theophrastus.'7 As for the short explanatoryclause in
Diogenes which follows on from the quotation,theoreticallyit could have
been addedby a writerlaterthanTheophrastus; and yet the simplicityand
unityof the passageas a whole makethis unlikely.In fact,for Theophrastus
to explainbrieflythat- and how - Empedocles'divine namesas given in
the quotationcorrespondto the four elements he himself has just listed
would be moreof a necessityin the courseof his expositionthana luxury.
All aspectsof the matterconsidered,it is difficultto avoidconcludingthatit
is here in Diogenes that we have Theophrastus'own explanationof
fragment6: Herais earthand Hadesair.
Diels was faced with a problem. Like virtually all writers in the
nineteenth (and twentieth) century he was convinced by the ancient
traditionwhich equated Empedocles' Hera with aer, and he went to
considerablelengths to preserveTheophrastus'honourby placing him at
the sourceof this tradition.'8Forcedto admitthatthe Diogenespassageas a
whole looks obviouslyTheophrastean, he took what for him was the only
possibleway out. We mustnot - he explained- trusttoo confidentlyin this
obvious conclusion, for the passage falsely equates Hera with earth:
thereforeany genuineTheophrastus materialmusthave been adulteratedby
inferiorsources.'9
Of course this will not work. The passage in which materialderiving
from Theophrastushas been adulteratedfrom other sources is the one in
pseudo-Plutarch; the brief and uniformstyle of Diogenes' reportshows no

' Diog. Laert. 8.76; Simplicius, Phys. 25.21-26 (the padding in Simplicius' version is
due to his source: Osborne 91); Diels, Dox. 167, apparatusto 478.1, and in PPF 108;
above, n. 13.
16 Note the participle (XAywv)as opposed to pseudo-Plutarch'sfuller yap kXFyeL.The

following considerationssuggest this is not due just to abbreviationby Diogenes or an

intermediatesource.
'7 This can fairly safely be inferredfrom the way that it crops up in so many later texts

which we know ultimatelyderive from him: cf. Osborne92.

18 Dox. 88-99, followed e.g. by Bollack II, 177 ('contamination'). Diels' guiding
assumptionthat Theophrastusrepresentsthe pure, unadulteratedand therefore correct
traditionabout the Presocraticsis never far from the surface.Cf. e.g. Dox. 167.
'9 ibid., 167andn. 2.

240

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tracewhateverof contamination.And, as a matterof fact, there is nothing
even slightly surprisingin Theophrastusexplaining the Empedoclean
fragmentin the way Diogenes proposes.The evidence stronglysuggests
thatthe Hera-aerequationonly developedinto a seriouselementof doctrine
with the Stoics. The greatesthonourwhich it seems to have been accorded
in strictlyphilosophicalliteraturebeforeTheophrastus'day appearsto be a
humorousmentionin Plato's Cratylus;Plato himself promptlydismisses it
as 'outrageousand ludicrous'.In the absenceof indicationsto the contrary,
it is extremelyprobablethatTheophrastus will have agreedwith Aristotlein
rejecting the linguistic theories put forward by Plato's Cratylus as
worthless.20
On the other hand, the equation of aer with Hades in a serious
philosophicalcontext was almost certainlymade by someone with whose
work Theophrastuswas well acquainted and whom he also plainly
respected:Xenocrates.2" As to the correspondingequationof earth with
'life-giving' Hera,its self-evidenceto anyoneeven slightlyacquaintedwith
Greekreligiousideas- andeven slightlyfamiliarwithearlyepic literature-
has often been noted.22Even Diels - whose theorythat the equationonly
originatedwith the laterHomericallegoristsoverlooksthe fundamentalfact
that Empedocleshimself manifestly stood in the epic tradition,with its
directdebt to Homer- had to note how very obvious andnaturalit was.23
It is importantto emphasisethat this is much more than could ever be
said for the equation of earth with Hades. It was of course naturalin
antiquitythatHadeswouldbe referredto as terrestrialwhencontrastinghim
with the celestial divinities of Olympus.24But when it comes to defining

20 Cratylus404c with 426b; for Aristotlecf. GuthrieHI, 206-8 with 208 n. 1. For Hera =
aer as specifically Stoic dogma see esp. Cicero, De nat. deor. 2.26.66 with Pease ad loc.;
Athenagoras,Legatio 6.4, 22.4; Diog. Laert. 7.147; Kerschensteiner124 n. 2; and ? VI
below.
21 Xenocrates, fr. 15 Heinze (fr. 213 Isnardi Parente); cf. R. Heinze's important
comments, Xenokrates,Leipzig 1892, 72. For Theophrastus'relation to Xenocrates cf.
esp. Xen. fr. 26 Heinze (fr. 100 I.P.); Ross-Fobes on Theophr.Metaph.6b6-9; M. Isnardi
Parente,Phronesis 16, 1971, 61 n. 25; also Burkert63-6. Regardingthe origins of the
Hades = aer equation see C. H. Kahn, Anaximander and the Origins of Greek
Cosmology, New York 1960, 152; below, ? VI with n. 51.
22 So e.g. G. Thiele, Hermes 32, 1897, 69; B. Snell, Philologus 96, 1943, 159. For the
intimate connection, especially in Magna Graecia, between Hera and the earth cf. A.
Klinz, 'I?Qos yyd.io;, Halle 1933, 98-104, Guthrie,The Greeks and their Gods, London
1950, 67-72, A. Hus, Greekand RomanReligion, London 1962, 24. See also the Derveni
Papyrus,col. 18.7 ('AQX.AcXT(OV19, 1964, 24; ZPE 47, 1982, 10) with W. Burkert,
Antike und Abendland 14, 1968, 104-5 and n. 26.
23 Dox. 22, describingthe equation as proclivis, verumautem exquisitius.
24
So e.g. Aeschylus, Suppl. 156; cf. West on Hesiod, Worksand Days 465.

241

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
him and his domainmore specificallywe invariablyfind them both being
located underneath the earth; to a Greek of the classical period - and later -
it was in fact second natureto draw a sharpdistinctionbetweenthe earth
(gaia or chth5n) and Hades.25There was a good reason for this. To the
Greeksnothingwas closer, moreintimateand moretangiblethanthe earth.
Hades,however,was alwaysessentially'other'.Whereverexactlyhis realm
was thoughtto be, it was alwaysassumedto be hidden,unseen.26 This helps
to explainthe fact that,althoughtheoreticallythe opportunityfor equating
Hadeswith earthcould hardlyhavebeencloser to hand,27 the firstsurviving
referenceto the equationdates from Roman times - as a crudely over-
simplistic inference from the Greek habit of referringto Hades as the
'terrestrialZeus'.28
One text which apparentlycontradictsthis datingis worthmentioningin
passing. Some have wished to ascribeto Philolaus,a Pythagoreanof the
fifth century BC, a statementin Proclus' commentaryon Euclid to the
effect thatHadescorrespondsto the elementof earthbecausehe 'embraces
the entiretyof terrestriallife'.29In fact, however,the statementin question-
includingthe assertionthat Hades correspondsto the element of earth-
forms partof Proclus'interpretation of Philolausand not of his reportof

25 Hesiod, Theog. 455, Semonides, fr. 1.14 West, Aesch. Pers. 839, Plato, Phaedrus
249a, Cornutus35 (74.5-8 Lang), etc. Cf. 11.15.191/3, Hes. Theog. 847/850, Richardson
on Homeric Hymn to Demeter 9, 33-5.
26 The common etymology of Hades as meaning 'invisible' (Plato, Gorgias 493b, etc.) is

of course just one expression of this idea, not its cause.

27 Cf. Plato, Cratylus403a; E. Rohde,
Psyche, London 1925, 160 and n. 13.
28 Varro, De ling. Lat. 5.66. The equation
also occurs in Augustine, Civ. Dei 7.16 (cf.
7.23, 28) = Varro,Antiquit.rerum divin. fr. 259 Cardauns,'Ditem patremterrenamet
infinam partemmundi', and in Cicero, De nat. deor. 2.26.66, 'terrenaautem vis omnis
atque naturaDiti patridedicataest' (the verbal similaritiesbetween this passage and the
passage in Varro's De lingua Latina prove their relatedness). Cicero's explanation is
subsequentlyquoted by ps.-Probus(In Bucol. 6.31, 334.18-21 Hagen), and reproduced
almost word for word by Firmicus Matemus ('terrenam vim omnem atque naturam
Ditem patrem dicunt ...', De errore 17.2). The equation also occurs in Orphic Hymn
18.6, which should be dated to no earlierthanthe 1st or 2nd centuryAD (cf. M. L. West,
The Orphic Poems, Oxford 1983, 35-6 and, for the title of the hymn, A. Dieterich, Kl.
Schr., Leipzig 1911, 103-4), and in Proclus,Theol. Plat. 6.10 (368.16-24 Portus);for the
relationbetween these passages and the explanationin Cicero see below, ? VI and n. 52.
Strikingly similar to the wording in Cicero is another statementby Proclus (In Eucl.
167.8-9 Friedlein),to be considerednext.
29 So e.g. Bignone 543, Buffiere 1956, 98-100. The Proclus passage is In Euci. 166.25-

167.11 Friedlein = DK 1, 402.21-5 = C. A. Huffman,Philolaus of Croton, Cambridge

1993, 381-2.

242

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
what Philolaus said.30This was seen by scholars a long time ago3' and is
confirmed by the exact formal parallel between this particular passage in
Proclus and the corresponding one which follows a little later, where
Proclus makes it even clearer that he is simply giving an interpretationof
Philolaus put forward by certain Platonists.32In the sentence equating Hades
with earth not only is the language Neoplatonic,33but so is the explanation
itself.34In fact Proclus' detailed account of Philolaus' ideas plainly does not
go back to Philolaus at all;35and as for his idea of equating Hades with the
element of earth, it is just as plainly inspired by a late 'Orphic' tradition
with which Proclus shows his familiarity elsewhere and which can be traced
back to theological speculations emanating from the circle of Cicero and
Varro.36

IV

In every possible respect the interpretation given by Diogenes - that

Empedocles' Hera corresponds to earth, his Hades to air - has the superior
claim to derive from Theophrastus. Once that is realised, Diels' entire
reconstruction of the history of the two traditions promptly crumbles. As we
have already seen, there is nothing whatever to be said in favour of his
theory that pseudo-Plutarch has preserved Theophrastus' interpretation;but

30 That the essential idea of ascribing 'the angle of a triangle' to Kronos, Hades, Ares
and Dionysus (Eucl. 167.1-3 = DK I, 402.21-2) does go back to Philolaus, and that this
idea is astrologicalin natureand ultimatelyBabylonianin origin, is virtuallycertain.Cf.
F. Boll, Kleine Schriften zur Sternkundedes Altertums,Leipzig 1950, 19-20; Burkert
349-50; K. von Fritz, RE SupplementbandXIII, 1973, 466-7; Kingsley 1994b.
3' E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen 1.i6, Leipzig 1919, 499 n. 1; P. Tannery,
Memoiresscientifiques,Toulouse and Paris 1912-50, VII, 131, 135-7 (orig. publ. 1889);
W. R. Newbold, AGPh 19, 1906, 198, 206.
32 (bg ucaQta ToV TLictaoi, [tE[c0Ia xacqEv... xCtLyaQ x%aXtoiot...: Eucl. 173.13-21.
" For PWnToTL cf. Proclus,El. theol. 23 ad init.;LSJ s.v., A 1.4.
14 The recent trend towards ascribing the division oi)o(C-q
o;t-lwo-ytveoLq to
Philolaus (e.g. W. Hubner,Philologus 124, 1980, 18-32) betrays a remarkablelack of
historicalperspective.
" The most instructivedetail is Proclus' descriptionof Dionysus as 'wet and hot' (Eucl.
167.9 = DK I, 402.24-5), which as a referenceto the element of air is normalenough by
Proclus' time (J. Lindsay, Origins of Astrology, London 1971, 127) but for two reasons
can hardly be ascribed to Philolaus. Firstly, the inspirationfor equating Dionysus with
air - or, for that matter,with aither - is decidedly post-Stoic (Plutarch,De Is. et Osir.
367c = SVF II, 319.29-32; Clement.homil. 6.9, 110.3-5 Rehm). Secondly, we know that
- in line with the ideas prevailingat his time - Philolausexplainedair as not hot but cold
(Anon. Londinensis 18.8-28 = DK 1, 405.30-406.1; Burkert 271, 291 n. 69; so e.g.
Philistion in Anon. Lond. 20.28-9).
36
See the refs above, n. 28.
243

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
his claim that the explanation we find in Diogenes was invented by
Homeric allegorists is equally built on shifting sands. To see the truthof the
situation all we have to do is turn back to pseudo-Plutarch's - and,
according to Diels, Theophrastus' - equation of Hera with air. Apart from
the evidence of pseudo-Plutarch, and leaving aside for the moment the
various fleeting references in even later literaturewhich attributethe Hera-
aer equation to Empedocles without going into any more detail about his
other gods, there is in fact only one other report which discusses the identity
of each of Empedocles' four divinities and equates his Hera with aer and
Hades with earth. This report, attributedto the Latin writer Probus, not only
cites Cicero and the Stoics as authorities for the identification but ascribes it
to one person in particular- and that person, Heracleon, happens to have
been a Homeric allegorist. The information is beyond any reasonable doubt
reliable and correct.37Needless to say, this utterly undermines Diels' theory
that it was the opposite equation - of Hera with earth and Hades with air -
which the Homeric allegorists were responsible for producing. The simple
reality is that both the Hera-air and the Hades-air equation were basic tools
of the trade for Homeric allegorists in antiquity; they were used
interchangeably wherever and whenever appropriate." Diels only showed
that the equation of Empedocles' Hades with air and of his Hera with earth
was taken up by some later allegorists (namely the allegorist Heraclitus).
But that is not to say they invented it.
There is one other ironical twist to the tale: what Diels ascribed to Aetius
clearly does not go back to him at all. As is well known, for his
reconstruction of the work of this Aetius he depended on two sources:
pseudo-Plutarch's Epitome and the extracts in Stobaeus. Normally he
printed these sources side by side; but when it came to Empedocles'
fragment 6 and the interpretationof it, he left the Stobaeus column blank
and printed pseudo-Plutarch's version alone.39The reason for his procedure
is plain. Stobaeus' version starts just like pseudo-Plutarch's - 'by Zeus he
means the "boiling" (zesis) and aither ...' - but, instead of equating Hera
with aer and Hades with earth, it equates Hera with earth and Hades with
aer. For Diels this was just a worthless variant on what we find in pseudo-
Plutarch, and he felt he had proved that the Stobaeus version was simply a
result of the Aetius tradition being contaminated by incorporation of

37 ps.-Probus,In Bucol. 6.31, 334.28-335.1 Hagen. On Heracleonsee Diels himself, Dox.

91 and n. 2; and below, ? VI.

38 Cf. e.g. Heraclitus,Alleg. 23.9-10, 24.1 (Hades = aer), and 15.3, 25.7, etc. (Hera =
aer), with Buffiere 1962, 29 n. 2 and 114, the second n. 6.
39 Dox. 287.

244

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
materialfrom the Homericallegorists.Y' From every possible angle this is
wrong. First of all, as we have seen, the version given by Stobaeus
correspondsto what is almostcertainlythe trueTheophrastean tradition.In
other words, here we have yet anotherinstance of Diels' own rule that
Stobaeustends to be considerablymore faithful than pseudo-Plutarchto
Aetius- and,ultimately,Theophrastus - becausehe is less proneto altering
what he finds.4'Secondly,Diels' extremelyinfluentialclaim that Stobaeus
has been infiltratedhere by ideas taken from the Homeric allegoristsis
demonstrablythe exact opposite of the truth:really it was the Homeric
allegoristswho took materialaboutthe Presocraticsfrom the Theophrastus
tradition,as representedin this case by Stobaeus.42Thirdly,there is the
question of Athenagorasand Achilles. Diels was able to show that both
these writers drew informationon Greek philosophy from the tradition
which goes back to Theophrastus.However, both equated Empedocles'
Herawith earthandhis Hadeswith air. This combinationof factorsis fatal
not only for Diels' claim that Athenagorasand Achilles derived their
informationdirectlyfrompseudo-Plutarch, but also for his argumentthatit
is pseudo-Plutarch who reproducesTheophrastus'explanationof fragment
6. Once againwe arebroughtbackto the conclusionthatit is not Stobaeus

40 Dox. 88-90, where the pseudo-Plutarchand Stobaeus versions are presented in

parallel.
41 Dox. 61-4. The particularlanguage used by Stobaeus (zesis, aither) is quite a different

matter:a clear sign of laterrewordingand elaborationunderspecifically Stoic influence,

it is precisely what is to be expected in the Theophrastustraditionfrom Aetius onwards.
42 Cf. the parallels listed in Dox. 88-9. The most obvious give-away is the quotationof

Emped. B17. 7-8 both in Stobaeus and in Plutarch's Life of Homer 99 (Dox. 89).
According to Diels Stobaeus must have copied the quotation, with the rest of his
material, from the Life of Homer. In fact, however, this precise quotation from
Empedocles goes back to Theophrastus,as is shown by its occurrenceboth in Diogenes
Laertius8.76 (above, ? III) and in Simplicius (Phys. 25.29-30 = FHSG 227A, I, 412-13;
Osborne90 and n. 15 notes the Stobaeus-Simpliciusparallelbut misses Diogenes).
43 Dox. 4-5 (Athenagoras),22 (Achilles); his argumentshave been
accepted as a matter
of course (e.g. Bumet 34, KRS 5). In the case of Achilles, Diels claimed with more
rhetoric than sense that he had simply altered what he found in his source, pseudo-
Plutarch;but Achilles' agreement with both Diogenes Laertius and Stobaeus (not to
mention Heraclitus, Athenagoras and Hippolytus: see above, n. 5) is plainly no
coincidence and (as Mette realised, 27 and n. 2) itself suggests that it is Achilles, not
pseudo-Plutarch,who represents the Theophrastus tradition. In fact Diels himself
eventually withdrew,orally, his theory of Achilles' dependence on ps.-Plutarch,and in
the meantime this theory has repeatedly been proved to be false (G. Pasquali, GGN
1910, 221-2, Burkert342-3 n. 23). As for Athenagoras,Diels argued- impossibly- both
that he copied his materialdirectlyfrom pseudo-Plutarchand thatthe source he used was
corruptedby the interpretationof the Homeric allegorists (Dox. 4-5, 90). The first of
these two claims has given rise to the widely accepted conclusion (cf. e.g. Burnet, loc.

245

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
but pseudo-Plutarchwho has departedfrom the Theophrastusand Aetius
tradition.
Finally, although further confirmationof this conclusion is hardly
needed,confirmationis preciselywhat we find in the fact that the Arabic
version of Aetius has followed Stobaeusin this particularsection - not
pseudo-Plutarch."4It is a sad reflectionboth of the continuinginfluenceof
Diels, and of the pervasive tendency to play down the value of those
sourcesof ourswhichsurvivein Arabic,thatthe recenteditorof this Arabic
version of Aetius failed to see it is a faithfultranslationof Stobaeusand
wronglyassumedthe translatorjust madea mistake.45

Altogether,the history of the two ancient traditionsabout Empedocles'

elementscan be summedup with a fairdegreeof probability- althoughnot
withoutsome blurringat the edges wherethe survivingevidencefades into
non-existence.It is very likely thatthe equationsof Empedocles'Herawith
earth,and Hades with air, go back to Theophrastus.He shouldhardlybe
creditedwith inventingtheseequationshimself,especiallyas we knowhow
much he lived in the shadowof Aristotlewhen it came to interpretingthe
Presocratics;and thereare groundsfor supposingthat at least some of the
elementsof his explanationderivedfrom acquaintancewith ideas held by
members of the Platonic Academy, Xenocrates in particular.46 From
Theophrastuswe see the explanationadoptedby Diogenes Laertiusand

cit.) that pseudo-Plutarch's Epitome must have been written before Athenagoras'
Legatio. The reasoningis null and void.
44H. Daiber,Aetius Arabus, Wiesbaden 1980, 104-5.
45 ibid., 341; Daiberevidently only had the text of ps.-Plutarchin frontof him. To claim

(as does D. T. Runia,Phronesis 34, 1989, 248-9) that the ArabicAetius is dependenton
ps.-Plutarch is an inauspicious start to a proposed re-assessment of the so-called
doxographictradition.
46 For Theophrastus'indebtedness to the overshadowing influence of Aristotle in his
interpretationsof the Presocratics cf. McDiarmid 233-8 and passim, and also J.
Mansfeld's conclusions in Theophrastus:His Physical, Doxographical, and Scientific
Writings,ed. W. W. Fortenbaughand D. Gutas, New Brunswick1992, 63-1 11; it should
hardlyneed adding that personaldiscussion with Aristotle will no doubt have played an
even greater role than Theophrastus' acquaintance with Aristotle's writings. For
Xenocrates' familiarity with the Hades = aer equation, and his relationship to
Theophrastus,see n. 21 above. The equation was probablytaken over by Xenocrates
from late-fifth-century Pythagoreans interested in schematising the idea of an
atmosphericHades (cf. M. L. West, Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient, Oxford
1971, 215; Burkert 248 n. 48). On Xenocrates' indebtedness to Pythagoreanism,
especially in mythologicaland cosmological matters,see Kingsley 1990, 250 and n. 33.

246

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Hippolytus,47AthenagorasandAchilles;acceptedby writerson Homersuch
as the allegoristHeraclitus,who turnedto the Theophrastustraditionfor
their knowledgeof the Presocratics;preservedin Stobaeus;and surviving
intactin the ArabicAetius.

VI

It is time now to look more closely at the alternativetradition.For this

purposewe need to turnfirst to the Stoics. The equationof Herawith air
seems to have gainedsome currencyearly in the historyof Stoicism;but it
is significantthat,in the secondcenturyBC, Diogenesof Babylonstill felt a
need to justify the equation by citing the explanationof it in Plato's
Cratylus.48This tends to suggest that the equationhad not yet become the
absoluteelement of Stoic doctrinewhich it was to become in succeeding
centuries:dogma needs no justification.And then there is the complem-
entary equation of Hades with earth. As noted earlier, its first known
occurrenceis in Latinliteratureof the mid-firstcenturyBC; and it is to this
same period that we owe a text which is of particularimportancefor
unravellingthe ancientstrandsof traditionaboutEmpedocles'fragment6.
In book two of On the natureof the gods, Ciceropresentsa cosmological
explanationof a famousscene fromthe Iliad in termsof the Stoicismof his
day. The scene in question, which was a test case in antiquityfor the

4' For some comments on the details of Hippolytus' explanation (Ref. 7.29.4-7) see
Mansfeld 212-13 with nn. 15-16. An importantpoint to bear in mind, when considering
the exact backgroundto this 'medley of ideas' (ibid., 213 n. 16) in Hippolytus, is the
large numberof linguistic terms and ideas which it shares with the surviving works of
Plutarch(for the Hades = air equationcf. L. Pannentier,Recherchessur le traite d'Isis et
d'Osiris de Plutarque,Brussels 1913, 71-8; for the expression 6xtQa TQoqijg,Plutarch,
Quaest. conviv. 690a and 698d with I. Garofalo, Erasistratifragmenta, Pisa 1988, 7).
This is probably significant considering the affinities between Plutarch's writings and
the Empedocles passage in Hippolytus which Walter Burkerthas drawn attention to
elsewhere (Kephalaion: Studies in Greek Philosophy and its Continuation Offered to
Professor C. J. de Vogel, ed. J. Mansfeld and L. M. de Rijk, Assen 1975, 140-2). The
skeleton of the explanation of Empedocles' elements in Hippolytus is identical to
Theophrastus'explanation as preserved in Diogenes Laertius 8.76 (above, ? III), and
Theophrastus was a writer with whom Plutarch happens to have been very well
acquainted(note the 68 listings from Plutarchin FHSG HI,683-6).
48 Philodemus,De pietate 15-16, VIII.33-IX.4 Henrichs= SVF III, 217.15-17. Diogenes'

major interest in linguistic theory makes his reference to the Cratylus readily
understandable:cf. SVF III, 212.23-215.16 and H. von Amim, RE V.i, 1903, 774. For
the importanceof the dialogue in Stoicism see K. Barwick, Probleme der stoischen
Sprachlehre und Rhetorik, Berlin 1957, 70-9. The Hera-aer equation is ascribed by
Minucius Felix to Zeno (Octavius 19.10 = SVF I, 43.29-30).

247

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
allegoricalinterpretationof Homer,describesthe division of the universe
into three separaterealmsbetween Zeus, Poseidonand Hades;as for the
earth,it remains'commonto all'. Before turningto the Homericpassage
itself, Cicero bares his assumptionsby - predictably- equating Zeus'
natureand realmwith the fiery aither.Next he addsthataccordingto Stoic
dogma (ut Stoici disputant) Hera must be given the aer which lies below
Zeus or aither and above the sea; it will be noted that Hera is not even
mentioned in the Homer passage.49 Then, with aither and aer already
accountedfor, Cicero applieshimself to the division of the cosmos in the
Iliad. OnceZeus andHerahadtogetherbeen given theirdue, he explains,of
the four Stoic elements only 'water and earth remainedto make up the
fabled division of the three realms' (aqua restabat et terra, ut essent ex
fabulis tria regnadivisa).Waterandthe sea of coursebelongto Neptune,or
Poseidon;this leavesjust the earth,whichnaturallymustcorrespondto the
only one of the threegods still remaining- Hades.50
There could be few more obvious examples of the general rule that
allegoristsand interpreters
in antiquitywere less concernedwith extracting
a sense fromthe text they were supposedlyinterpretingthanwith imposing
theirown ideas upon it. The Iliad passagestates specificallythatthe earth
was the one cosmic realmnot dividedbetweenZeus, Hadesand Poseidon
(yaia 6' ETL MuvI1 rnrvTwv). However, this does not stop Cicero from
introducing the Stoic dogma that Hera must correspond as aer to Zeus'
aither and, consequently, being forced to apportion earth to Hades. The
more understandableinterpretationof the lines of Homer from a classical
point of view - that Zeus is aither, Poseidon or Neptune water and Hades
aer (in the Iliad passageitself he is given the 'murkyrealmof aer') - is well
attested in Greek literature.5'The stubbommisinterpretation offered by
Cicero was to have some success in latertimes;52but even apartfrom the

49 For this characteristicallyStoic juxtapositionof Zeus as aither above Hera as aer cf.
Augustine,Civ. Dei 4.10; Pease's commentaryon Cicero, De nat. deor. 2.26.66 'sororet
coniunx'; Buffi6re 1956, 109-16.
5o De nat. deor. 2.25.65-26.66, referring(as noted by Pease, ad loc.) to Iliad 15.187-93.

5' Heraclitus,Alleg. 41.3-9 (with Buffiere 1962, 102, the second n. 3, 114-15); ps.-
Plutarch, Vit. Hom. 97; schol. 11. 15.191 (52.79-80 Erbse) and 193 (54.25-6), cf. on
192-3 (52.88-92; 53.5-7); Olympiodorus,Gorg. 245.26-246.6 Westerink;Eustathius,11.
III, 719.10-12 van der Valk. Allegorical interpretationof the Iliad passage very probably
lies also behind Xenocrates, fr. 15 Heinze = fr. 213 I.P. (cf. Proclus, Crat. 83.16-84.5
Pasquali) and possibly Heraclides Ponticus' triple division of the heavens, frs. 95-6
Wehrli.
52 Cf. Orphic Hymn 18.6, (JlXoi3Tv) 6; TLeT6TrT; [tO(Q1; 1kCQt(eg X0OvO
;Uq4kauRELav (for the dating of the hymn see above, n. 28); Proclus, Theol. Plat. 6.10
(368.16-24 Portus).

248

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
fact that in its allocationof earthto Hades it is in manifestdisagreement
with the earlier conventionsof Stoic allegory, there are no groundsfor
datingits originmuch- if at all - earlierthanthe firstcenturyBC.s3
Now for the relevance of this passage in Cicero to Empedocles.As
alreadymentioned,the only otherancienttext apartfrom pseudo-Plutarch
that equates Empedocles'Hades with earth and his Hera with air is the
Latin commentaryon Virgil which is ascribedto Probus.The passage in
question starts off with the quotationof Empedocles'fragment6. Next
comes a detailed interpretationof the fragmentwhich, as we have had
reasonto see, almostcertainlygoes backto Theophrastus: Zeus is fire, Hera
earth and Hades air.54 But the Probus text does not stop there. It continues:
Cicero, however, in the second book of On the nature of the gods, interpretsthem
inversely, explaining Aidoneus as earthand Hera as air.
The writer then proceeds to quote word for word the passage from Cicero
discussed above, which equates aer with Hera and Hades with earth. Next
he cites in full the lines from the Iliad which Cicero had already referred to,
and adds the interpretationof them which Cicero himself had given: aither
belongs to Zeus, sea to Neptune and earth to Hades. As a final remark he
observes:

The fact that Cicero puts the allegory into the mouthof a Stoic, Balbus, was seen by J.
Pepin as justification for attributingit to the foundersof Stoicism (Mytheet allegorie2,
Paris 1976, 125-7). Certainlyit is true that the principlesbehind this kind of allegory go
back to the earliest Stoics, but the same cannot be said for the actual details of the
interpretation.On the contrary,Balbus - historicallya contemporaryof Cicero - is very
good at statingwhich of the theoriesthathe mentionsgo back to the older Stoics (cf. e.g.
De nat. deor. 2.22.57-8; 24.63). His failure to give any authority in this case itself
already suggests that here we have one more instance of Cicero's preference for
reproducingthe views held by the philosophers of his time; the use of Balbus as
interlocutor points towards the Roman Stoicism of the mid-first century BC,
overshadowed by men such as Quintus Mucius Scaevola and Posidonius (Digesta
lustiniani 1.2.41-2; Cicero, De nat. deor. 2.34.88) as well as by the ingenious
reformulationsof Antiochus of Ascalon. It is also clearly relevant that all the surviving
examples of Stoic allegory which go back either to the second century BC or earlier
unanimouslyinterpretthe earth not as Hades but as a goddess. For Demeter cf. SVF II,
316.6-7; 316.30; 315.17; Philodemus, De pietate 15, VIII.32-3 Henrichs = Dox.
549.32-3 (missing from SVF); SVF II, 305.24; 319.31-2; Cornutus 28 (52.3-5 Lang);
also Xenocrates,fr. 15 Heinze = fr. 213 I.P. ... Xo0QTYtGC(gToi; ETIXoig. Rhea:SVFII,
315.16; 318.13; 318.15. Hestia:Cornutus28 (52.3-5 Lang) and probablySVF I, 43.20-4
(cf. Hesiod, Theog. 454; SVF I, 43.29-32). See also SVF II, 318.31-3 and 39-41. On the
other hand, Hades appears to have been consistently equated with (dark) air:
Philodemus, De pietate 13, VI.3-4 Henrichs = SVF II, 315.20; Cornutus 5 (4.16-18
Lang); Heraclitus,Alleg. 23.9, 41.9; ps.-Plutarch,Vit. Hom. 97-8; cf. also Xenocrates,
loc. cit.
54 In Bucol. 6.31, 332.30-334.10 Hagen.
249

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 In this it will be noticed that Homer is in agreement with Empedocles and
Heracleon, if we follow Cicero's divergent opinion.:

This quotationby pseudo-Probusfrom the Iliad has, understandably,

causedconsiderableconfusion:the interpretation of it whichhe offers is so
ridiculouslywide of the mark that it is tempting to suppose there is
somethingwrongwith the text. Diels was the firstto alterthe Latinto make
pseudo-ProbusexplainHadesat this pointas meaningair, not earth,and so
bring the text into harmonywith the more familiarinterpretation of the
Homericpassageattestedelsewhere.This is doubly impossible.Firstly,to
bring what is still Cicero's interpretationinto agreement with the
interpretationwhich Cicero is specifically said to be controvertingis
manifestlyabsurd;it could not in fact be clearerfrom the sequenceof the
passagethat Heracleonand Ciceroare both being cited as maintainingthe
equationof Hades with earth.56Secondly, those who have emendedthe
passagefailed to note thatthe interpretation of Hadesin the lines from the
Iliad as representingearth is not something new to the text of Probus,and
thereforeopen to any doubt regardingthe soundnessof the text. On the
contrary,the identicalinterpretationis alreadypresentin the very same
excerpt from Cicero which pseudo-Probushas just quoted verbatimand
whichhe is still discussing.57Alterationof the text is not only unnecessary,
but wrong.
Some obvious inferences can be drawn from the Probus passage -
althoughwith the necessarycautionthat appearancescan be illusory.To
begin with,thereis the self-evidentfact thatthe explanationof Empedocles'

s 'Cicero autem 'AL6wvEctpro terrainterpretatur, '"HQctv pro aere versa vice in libro
secundo .... Quod ad Iovem aetherpertineat,mare ad Neptunum,terraad Ditis imperia,
in aere terram remansisse. In quo animadvertendum,quod Homerus consentiat
Empedocliet HeracleoniCiceronisdiversaopinione' (334.10-335.1). The words 'in aere
terramremansisse' are obviously a superficialattemptto reconcile the explanationwith
ll. 15.191.
56 Cf. esp. 334.18-28: ... idem ... quod ... in quo ... (disregarding Hagen's alterations).
S' This point was alreadymissed by Keil, who proposedmaking ps.-Probus'attribution
of 'terraad Ditis imperia'read 'inferi (vel tartarus)ad Ditis imperia'instead.Subsequent
emendationof the text was made by Diels, Dox. 90-1, Thilo (cf. appendixto Hagen's
Probus, p. 389), Hagen (text and apparatusto 334.27-8) and Mette (25, 132). Thilo's
justification for emending earth to air - 'terra ex aer corruptuma lectore quodam, qui
Homerumcum Ciceronecongruumexhibere volebat' (loc. cit.; cf. Diels, Dox. 91 n. I) -
is characteristicof the failureto realise that there was nothingat all to reconcile because
the explanationof Homer's Hades as earthhad alreadybeen given by Cicero. As for the
final words, 'Ciceronis diversa opinione', they can only mean 'according to Cicero's
divergentopinion', not 'whereasCicero holds a divergentopinion'. For referencesto the
more normalinterpretationof Homer's Hades as air cf. above, n. 51.

250

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Hera as aer and Hades as earth is cited after the opposite explanation, and is
presented specifically as a correction or reversal of it due to application of
Stoic principles of exegesis."8 This sequence, as we have already seen, has
every appearance of representing the chronological realities. More
particularly it helps to illustrate the way in which, in the case of pseudo-
Plutarch, an original explanation going back to Theophrastus came to be
not just corrected but altogether superseded by a newer, Stoicising
interpretationof fragment 6.
The other striking feature of the Probus text is that the passage from
Cicero's On the nature of the gods is presented as the very basis for the
explanation of Empedocles' Hades as earth rather than air. In the complete
absence of any evidence to the contrary, this naturally tends to suggest that
the explanation originated with someone living later than Cicero who
simply applied to fragment 6 the same allegorical interpretationwhich had
already been applied by Cicero to Homer. As an inference, this would not in
itself be conclusive; however, a strong confirmation of it is provided by the
reference to the name of Heracleon. The only satisfactory explanation for
the mention of this name here is that the man was known to pseudo-Probus
as the source for the 'divergent' interpretation- as he himself describes it -
of Empedocles' Hera as air and Hades as earth.59The exact dates of
Heracleon are not known, but it is clearly significant that he almost
certainly lived after the time of Cicero - most probably at the very end of
the first century BC or during the first half of the following century.60In
short, there is no reason at all to suppose that the particularinterpretationof
Empedocles for which Heracleon is cited as authority originated any earlier
than the start of the Christian era: some three hundred or more years after
Theophrastus, some four to flve hundred after Empedocles.

58 For the same sequence cf. also Athenagoras,Legatio 22.1-2 (cites B6 and equates
Hera with earth)followed by 22.4 (Hera = aer, 'accordingto the Stoics').
59 Correctly Bollack III, 181-2 (cf. also Diels, Dox. 91, Mette 25 n. 6). However,
although Bollack rightly saw that Heracleon is being cited as authorityfor identifying
Empedocles' Hades with earth, he wrongly postulatedthat it was Heracleon who was
also responsible for interpretingthe Iliad passage in the same way on the basis of his
prior interpretationof Empedocles ('He'racleon represente 1'explication allegorique
force d'Homere 'apartirdes noms d'Empedocle', III, 182). This, once again, is to miss
the fundamentalfact that the interpretationof the Iliad is alreadypresent in Cicero.
60 A. Gudeman,RE VIII.i, 1912, 512-14; M. van der Valk, Researches on the Text and
Scholia of the Iliad I, Leiden 1963, 436 n. 118. There is no real justification for the
doubts sometimes expressed (M. Schmidt, Erklarungenzum WeltbildHomers und zur
Kultur der Heroenzeit in den bT-Scholien zur Ilias, Munich 1976, 64 with n. 72)
regardingthe identityof Probus' Heracleonwith Heracleonthe Homeric grammarian.

251

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 VII

The way in which those lines from the Iliad were 'interpreted'by both
Ciceroand pseudo-Probusis an instructivereminderas to how it doubtless
came about that Empedocles'fragment6 was explainedalong the same
lines: not as the resultof attemptingto determinewhatEmpedocleshimself
meantto say, but as a resultof imposingpreconceivedand predetermined
ideas on the text. In otherwords,we simplyhave anothercase hereof that
disastrous principle which later antiquity inheritedfrom Stoicism: the
principleof 'accommodation',of turningearlierwritersinto mouthpieces
for much later ideas.6' Needless to say, Empedocles' clearly deliberate
61 Bumet 32 and n. 1. For the concept of O1JVOLXELOVV cf. also A. Henrichs,BCPE 5,
1975, 16. 'Menander', Epideict. 337.1-13 Spengel (D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson,
MenanderRhetor, Oxford 1981, 12-14; cf. Emped. A23) is often cited as evidence that
Empedocles equatedaer with Hera, but the passage says no more than that Parmenides
and Empedocles tended to formulateexplanations 'of the type' Hera = aer, Zeus = To
0eQ,6v (i.e. aither). These of course are both typical examples of Stoic exegesis
(Buffiere 1956, 106-16). For Empedocles as 'chief' of the Stoics cf. ps.-Probus, In
Bucol. 6.31, 332.27-9 Hagen. Indirect evidence of Empedocles' importancefor the
Stoics is provided by the polemic of the Epicurean Hermarchus,ostensibly directed
againstEmpedoclesbut clearly directedin realityagainstcontemporariesof Hermarchus
- notably Stoics - who appealedto Empedoclesas a spokesmanfor their own ideas. Cf.
D. Obbink,CQ 38, 1988, 429, 432.
R. Philippson thought he had recovered a reference in Philodemus' On piety to
EmpedoclesequatingHera with air and Zeus with fire (Hermes 55, 1920, 277 = DK 31
A33d). But even apart from the syntactical implausibility of his reconstruction
('EwteboxXii occurs suspiciously late in the sentence after cpi)atv),and apartfrom the
improbabilityof a reference in Philodemus to Empedocles' 'hymns' (for Philodemus
Empedocleswas a philosopherratherthan a poet: cf. nEQt xaxLtv 10, X.19-25 Jensen,
also the parallel text in Cicero, De nat. deor. 1.12.29), Philippson's theory is quite
untenable.As the published version of the 19th-centurydisegni stated and as Henrichs
has now confirmed, the papyrus reads EMIHO[, not EMIHE[; any reference at all to
Empedoclesis out of the question (T. Gomperz,HerkulanischeStudienII, Leipzig 1866,
63 and Tafel 13; A. Henrichs,BCPE 5, 1975, 18-19 with n. 81). For generalcriticismof
Philippson's over-imaginative reconstructionsof the remains of On piety, plus his
frequentdisregardfor the transmittedlettering in the papyrusfragments,cf. Henrichs,
GRBS 13, 1972, 68-9, 73-4. The most likely explanationof the text in this particularcase
is t[t7ro[&6v. For air (5th line of fragment: cf. BCPE 5, 1975, 18) as 'hindering'
comparethe allegoricalinterpretationof Hom. hymnto Apollo 83-119 in Macrobius,Sat.
1.17.52-4: Hera as air, accordingto the physici (cf. Philodemus'kXyovt(n)hindersLeto
as earth from giving birth (obstitisse, intervenit, obstabat). It is very probable that
Apollodorus' HErit OEov is the ultimate source both of the passage in Macrobius (cf. J.
Bidez, Vie de Porphyre,Ghent 1913, 150, J. Flamant,Macrobeet le n&o-platonisme latin
d lafin du Ive siecle, Leiden 1977, 648, 656) and of the Philodemusfragment(Henrichs,
BCPE 5, 5-38, esp. 18). This helps in completing the rest of the fragment.For wpoIItin
the first line cf. Hymn to Apollo 85-6, Apollodorus,FGrH 244 F102a6 (IvTyL 6ElViV

252

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
intention to present fragment 6 as a kind of riddle62laid it wide open to
attempts at interpretation of this type. And to this we must add another
point. The interpretationin question seems to have been formulated as an
'improvement' on the interpretationalready given by Theophrastus, which
makes it very probable that it was based on no greater knowledge of
Empedocles' theory of elements than could be deduced from fragment 6
itself - as quoted, independent of any Empedoclean context, by
Theophrastus.
Apart from its mention in pseudo-Probus, and apart from infiltrating the
Theophrastus tradition in pseudo-Plutarch, no other sign remains of the
identification of Empedocles' Hades with earth. As for the equation of his
Hera with air, it only lived on in rhetorical catchphrases or entries in the
ancient dictionaries which substitute dogmatic certainty for any real
knowledge of what Empedocles actually said.63Behind these few references
lies the simple device of citing Empedocles' authority as a way of giving
the equation the prestige of a respectable antiquity.
That Diels himself was so impressed by this device that he wanted to
ascribe the interpretation to Theophrastus - and, in so doing, assume its
correctness for Empedocles himself - is one of the many ironies of
Empedocles scholarship. It is difficult nowadays to share his naive
assumption that Theophrastus must be right, and that misinterpretationsof
the Presocratics only crept in in later centuries: Theophrastus was just as
capable as Diels of misrepresenting the evidence to make it suit his own
interests, and just as capable of making mistakes. In fact, as I show in a
forthcoming book,64 neither of the two interpretations of Empedocles'
fragment 6 that were current in antiquity can possibly be correct. On the
other hand, the solution first proposed in 1891 by Friedrich Knatz65- that
Empedocles' Zeus corresponds to the element of aither or air, his Hera to
earth, and his Hades to fire - is certainly the right one. But that is another
story.
The Warburg Institute, London

tVa xaCLPo0cQav bafCova). Philippson's AL[6v1vI in 2 is very plausible (so also

Henrichs,art.cit. 19): cf. Hymnto Apollo 93. In favourof a supplementsuch as [ITX]FcV
L3uo[86)vcf. Hymn to Apollo 90-106, Macrobius, loc. cit., and also Philodemus in
GRBS 13, 1972, 72-3 9,uQag 6AyfoCaLxat v3xTC;g tvvWEtv AvTO onev texev.
62 See Mansfeld 193-5 with n. 113, 213 n. 17; also K. Reinhardt,Parmenides und die
Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie, Bonn 1916, 52, B. A. van Groningen, La
compositionlitteraire archaique grecque2,Amsterdam1960, 204-5.
63 References above, nn. 5 and 61.
64 Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition,
Oxford 1995.
65
In Schedae philologae HermannoUsener ... oblatae, Bonn 1891, 2.
253

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Abbreviationsand Bibliography
Dox. H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci, Berlin 1879
FHSG W. W. Fortenbaugh,P. M. Huby, R. W. Sharples,D. Gutas et al., Theophrastus
of Eresus: Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence, vols. 1-2,
Leiden 1992
KRS G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven and M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers2,
Cambridge1983
PPF H. Diels, Poetarumphilosophorumfragmenta,Berlin 1901

Bignone, E., Empedocle,Turin 1916

Bollack, J., Empedocle,3 vols, Paris 1965-69
Buffiere, F. (1956), Les mythesd'Homere et la pensee grecque, Paris 1956
- (1962), Heraclite, Allegories d'Homere, Paris 1962
Burkert,W., Lore and Science in AncientPythagoreanism,Cambridge,Mass. 1972
Bumet, J., Early Greek Philosophy4,London 1930
Guthrie,W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy, 6 vols, Cambridge1962-81
Kerschensteiner,J., Kosmos, Munich 1962
Kingsley, P. (1990), 'The Greek Origin of the Sixth-CenturyDating of Zoroaster',
Bulletin of the School of Orientaland AfricanStudies 53, 1990, 245-65
- (1994a), 'Empedocles' Sun', Classical Quarterly44, 1994
- (1994b), Review of C. A. Huffman'sPhilolaus of Croton,Classical Review 44, 1994
Mansfeld,J., Heresiographyin Context,Leiden 1992
McDiarmid,J. B., 'Theophrastuson the PresocraticCauses', in Studies in Presocratic
Philosophy I, ed. D. J. Furley and R. E. Allen, London 1970, 178-238 (orig. publ. in
HSCPh 61, 1953)
Mette, H. J., Sphairopoiia,Munich 1936
Osborne,C., RethinkingEarly Greek Philosophy, London 1987
Wright,M. R., Empedocles:The ExtantFragments,New Haven 1981

254

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:12:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions