Empedocles' Cosmic Cycle: A Reconstruction from the Fragments and Secondary Sources 0521058554, 9780521058551

Citation preview

CAMBRIDGE

CLASSICAL

STUDIES

General Editors D. L. PAGE

W. K. C. GUTHRIE

A. H. M. JONES

EMPEDOCLES' COSMIC

CYCLE

EMPEDOCLES' COSMIC CYCLE A RECONSTRUCTION THE

FRAGMENTS

SECONDARY

FROM AND

SOURCES BY

D.O'BRIEN Fellow of '" Gonville and Caius College,Camhridge

CA1JBRIDGE AT THE

UNIVERSITY

1969

PRESS

Published by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press Bentley House, 200 Euston Road, London N.W. I American Branch: 32 East 57th Street, New York, N.Y. rno22 © Faculty Board of Classics, University of Cambridge, 1969 Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 68-rn33ci Standard Book Number: 521 05855 4

Printed in Great Britain at the University Printing House, Cambridge (Brooke Crutchley, University Printer)

CONTENTS Acknowledgment

page

System of References and Abbreviations I THE

PROPOSED

2 REST

AND

vii

ix

RECONSTRUCTION

MOVEMENT

I

4

The Sphere alone was at rest and at all other times the elements were moving

J

SPEED

Speed rose and fell with the rise and fall of Strife's power

4

TIME

55

The Sphere lasted for as long as the world of plurality and movement. The time of total Strife was momentary

5

THE

PLACE

OF LOVE

AND

STRIFE

104

During the period ofherincreasing power Love expanded from the centre of the divided elements and pushed Strife to the circumference. As Strife's power increased Strife moved inwards from the circumference and pushed Love into the centre of the elements

6

THE

SHAPE

OF LOVE

AND

STRIFE

Throughout the cycle Love was stretched out in the form of a sphere, while Strife surrounded Love in an even layer

7

THE

SEPARATED

ELEMENTS

The fully separated elements were arranged in concentric spheres of fire, air, water and earth 8 THE

CYCLIC

SYSTEM

Alternate worlds of increasing Love and increasing Strife were part of an endless succession of the one and the many

127

CONTENTS

9

THE

ZOOGONICAL

STAGES

Under increasing Strife there were born whole-natured creatures, then men and women, then monsters and separate limbs. The same creatures were born in the reverse order under increasing Love IO CONCLUSION

2 37

The significance of the cosmic cycle in the development of Greek philosophy

Notes 1 Aristotle's understanding of vovw, Ta n-piv µ6:0ov6:06:vo:-r'elvo:1, 15 5wp6: TE,Ta n-plv o:KpTJTO:, 6iaAi\6:!;o:vTo: KEAev0ovs. TWV 6e TEµ1cryoµevwvXEiT'E0veo:µvp!o:6vT]TWV, n-o:v-roio:1s rneri1cr1v &prip6To:,eo:0µ0:isecreo:1.

Lines 3-5 of this fragment are taken as a description of the Sphere, explicitly by Bergkz and Zafiropulo3 and presumably by most other scholars, since line IO tells us that Strife is driven outside when Love prevails, and evepTCXTov [3ev0os8ivris in lines 3-4 is commonly taken to mean the outermost circumference, the same TepµCXTa KVKAov.4 If the lines describe the Sphere, the as ecrxCXTa sense will be: 'When Strife is outside the elements and Love is in the centre, the elements join together and form the Sphere, lines 3-5. But the process of reunification is delayed sufficiently (oVKo:q,ap aJ\°Aa0e°Ariµcx) for numberless mortal creatures to be born, lines 6 ff.' 1

z 4

Diels prints ECTTTJKEnot ~CTTTJKE.This he plausibly explains, in line with the imperfect tenses in the immediate context, as an imperfect formed from CTTTJKEtv.Cf. Schwyzer, GriechischeGrammatik, vol. 1, p. 767. (1837), col. 449• 3 (1953), p. 130. References p. II 3 below. 106

FRAGMENT

35

A different interpretation was given:by Zeller 1 and von Arnim. z They made events in lines 3-4 precede the formation of mortal creatures as described in the rest of the fragment. This should have led to Love being at the centre of the elements at the time of total Strife. It is true that for von Arnim, and in a modified sense for Zeller, there is only one world of mortal creatures from Sphere to Sphere, fashioned by Love after an initial separation of the elements by Strife.3 But for Zeller and von Arnim the time between the separating of the elements and Love's fashioning of mortal creatures corresponds to total Strife in a full two-world scheme; and on their view Love at such a time should cnpotAlm,cf.

p. 202 above. From the point of view of Love's power monsters are an advance upon separate limbs, even though they are a decline compared with men and women or ovr.ocpvfj,as noted pp. 205-6 above. 207

THE

ZOOGONICAL

STAGES

as separate limbs and monsters, Phys. 320. 7-8. Philoponus has misunderstood Aristotle's criticism, as also has Cherniss. 1 Aristotle wrote, Phys. 199b5-9: Kai EVTais E~o:pxfis &po:O"VO'TO:O"EO"I TO'.l3ovyevfj,ei µ11,rp6s T!Va opov K0:1TEAOS DUVo:TCC i'jv ei\6eiv, 610:q,6e1poµevris o:v o:pxfis TIVOSeyiyvETo, wo-mp WV TOVo-,repµcrros. ET\ o:v6:yKrio-,repµa yevfoeo:i ,rpwTOV, o:i\i\ccµ11evihis TCC 3w1a. Kai TO'ovi\oq,ves µev ,rpwTO:' o-,repµo:i'jv.

Philoponus takes the reference to Empedocles as a straightforward illustration of how monsters are born and nothing more, Phys. 320. 6-9: omp ow efoov, ei Kai 6&'iµevo:i\ri6fielvo:iTov 'Eµm6oKi\fovs µOOovws Ko:T'o:px11vcrvvEO"TfJ Tivccl3ovyevfjo:v6p6,rpwpa (sic), Tov ovi\oq,vovs TOVTovq,60:pevws6ri71.ov6T1 crvveo-rri,wo-,repKai vvv TCC TEpo:To: yiveTo:1 Tov o-,repµo:Tosq,eo:pevTosri ,r71.eov6:o-o:vws ri e71.Aeil.{/o:vTos.

Liri71.ov6Tt betrays Philoponus' ignorance. In fact Philoponus has run together three distinct criticisms. 1. First, Empedocles' monsters are introduced as an example of the failure of natural form to assert itsel£ 2. "ET1&vccyives out of ov71.oq,vf\. If they had done, Aristotle would have had no fault to find. As it is, Aristotle's point is that in his account of ov71.ocpvf\ Empedocles acknowledges the principle that an animal must come from a seed, while this very principle he has denied in his account of monsters and separate animal parts. The one evolutionary sequence condemns the other. This kind of criticism is characteristic of Aristotle) I 2

3

ACP, pp. 253-5. At least his separate limbs did, cf. pp. 200-3 above and 234-6 below. For another example, on the question of the alternate power of Love and Strife, see pp. 61 and 63 above. 208

FIRST

STAGE

OF

INCREASING

STRIFE

The passing similarity between a seed and an ovAocpvEs,in that both are the source of an animal and as yet undifferentiated, is of course sufficient for Aristotle's purpose. 1 It is a sleight of hand for which he is criticized by Simplicius.:z Conclusion

If in both cases we discount Philoponus, our evidence from Aristotle and Simplicius and the fragments hangs together satisfactorily. We have two evolutionary sequences with no doubt about the opening stages of each. Under Love separate limbs are joined together to form monsters. Under Strife there arise wholenatured forms. THE

SECOND

ST AGE

We consider now the place of men and women. There is no doubt that men and women were formed from ovAocpveisTVTTOt. Whether they were formed also under increasing Love proves a more difficult question. But fr. 26, supported primarily by some remarks of Simplicius, leaves little doubt that men and women were formed under increasing Love as well as under increasing Strife. THE

SECOND

STAGE

OF INCREASING

STRIFE

The whole-natured creatures Empcdocles introduced to explain how men and women arose, fr. 62. 1-2.3 They appeared, Simplicius tells us, Phys. 381. 29-30, 1rp6 Tf\s -rwv 6:v6pe{wvKa:iyvva:1Ke{wv crwµcrrwv6ta:p0pwcrews.They were subsequently split apart, Phys. 382. 20, 6ia:Kpicrews f'i6TJyevoµEVTJS eva:v-roisKa:i6ta:CYTTa:cr0ev-ros -rov ev a:v-rwt (sc. -rw1 ovAocpvovs. Cf. 382. 17-18, µ111rwyevoµEVTJS ovAocpvei)6iCXKptcrews. The conclusion is inevitable, though it has been denied by Rudberg, that men and women arose from the separation of the whole-natured creatures.4 The effects of this event may still be seen. The original division of male from female has to be repaired in the procreation of 1

For the separation of the ooi\o