Hesiod and Empedocles

7/23/2019 Hesiod and Empedocles

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hesiod-and-empedocles 1/18

The Classical Association of the Middle West and South is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

The Classical Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

Hesiod and EmpedoclesAuthor(s): Jackson P. HershbellSource: The Classical Journal, Vol. 65, No. 4 (Jan., 1970), pp. 145-161Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and SouthStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3295548Accessed: 11-05-2015 20:06 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 contentin 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 [email protected].

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.51 on Mon, 11 May 2015 20:06:22 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=camws

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3295548

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp






http://www.jstor.org/stable/3295548

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=camws

http://www.jstor.org/



HESIOD

AND

EMPEDOCLES

Teacher

of most menis Hesiod:

they

are sure that he knows

many

things,

who

did not

recognize

day

and

night:

for

they

are

one.

HUS

HERACLITUS CRITICIZED

Hesiod,

and almost two

centuries

later

testified

to his influence on subsequent generations.

Whether he

was

thinking

of the common

men rather than of the

leading

thinkers

and

poets

of

his

day

is not clear.

But

in

any

case,

this

quotation,

together

with

the

other references

of Heraclitus

and Xen-

ophanes

to

Hesiod, suggests

the

latter's

continuing

importance

in the

development

of

Greek literature

and

thought.1

As

Solm-

sen and others have

observed,

Hesiod's

influence is

by

no means confined

to

epic,

lyric,

and

elegiac poets,

but extends also to

philosophers

such

as Parmenides

and Em-

pedocles.2

Since

they

wrote

in

hexametric

verse,

the

distinction

between

poet

and

philosopher is,

of

course,

an artificial

one.

Both

drew

from

the

main

poetic

tradition of

Homer

and

Hesiod, though

the

extent of

their

borrowings

and

the

impact

of

this

tradition

on

their

thought

remain

to

some

degree

undetermined.

In

the

case

of Em-

pedocles in particular,scholarsof the Pre-

socratics

such

as W. K. C. Guthrieand W.

Jaeger,

have discussed

points

of

comparison

between his poems and those of Hesiod,

mainly

in connection

with

the

doctrine

of

Love and Strife

and the

teachings

of

his

religious

work the

Purifications

(Kathar-

moi).3

Other

scholars such

as

W.

Kranz

and A.

Traglia

have noted

formal

and

sty-

listic

similarities between

the

compositions

of

the

two

poetic

thinkers.4

A

survey

of the

work

of

these

scholars

suggests

that

the

influence

of

Hesiod

on

Empedocles

is

far

more

extensive

than

their

individual

studies

and observations indicate.

Hence,

the aim

of

the

present

study

is to

draw

together

and

supplement

previous

scholarly

research in

order

to

determine,

if

possible,

the

full

extent

of

the

relationship

between Hesiod

and

Empedocles.

An

obvious

danger

of

such a

study

is

that

it

can

become

a

mere

1

In

addition to B57

of

the

fragments

of

Hera-

clitus'

work,

see B40 and

B106;

for

Xenophanes,

B11.

All

references

to the

fragments

are from

H.

Diels and

W.

Kranz,

Fragmente

der

Vorsokratiker,

7th

edition,

vol.

I

(Berlin

1954).

Hereafter

re-

ferred

to

as

DK,

I.

For

an

interesting

discussion

of the

influence

of

Homer

and Hesiod

on Xen-

ophanes, Heraclitus,

and

Parmenides,

see

E.

A.

Havelock, Pre-Literacy

and

the

Pre-Socratics,

Institute

of

classical

studies,

Univ.

of

London,

Bulletin

No. 13

(1966)

44-67.

2

See F.

Solmsen,

Hesiod and

Aeschylus (Ithaca

1949)

p.

103

f.,

especially

104,

n.

6. See also E.

F.

Dolin, Jr.,

Parmenides and

Hesiod,

Harvard

studies

in

classical

philology

66

(1962)

93-98.

3

W. K. C.

Guthrie,

A

history of

Greek

philoso-

phy,

vol.

II

(Cambridge,

England

1965),

especially

p. 251-253, 255,

and

264. Also

W.

Jaeger,

The

theology of

the

early

Greek

philosophers

(Oxford,

reprint

1960),

p.

14-15 and

137

f.

I

am

especially

indebted to

Jaeger

for

the

discussion

of

Hesiod's

and

Empedocles'

concepts

of

divinity.

4

See

W.

Kranz,

Das Verhdltnis

des

Sch6pfers

zu

seinem

Werk

in

des althellenischen

Literatur,

Neue

Jahrbiicher

fiir

das

klassische

Altertum 27

(1924)

67-86,

especially 66,

73,

and

78-79.

Also

his

Empedokles,

Antike

Gestalt

und

romantische

Neusch6ipfung (Zurich

1949).

A.

Traglia,

Studi

sulla

lingua

di

Empedocle

(Bari

1952).

Traglia's

interesting

and

valuable

study

has

not

received

as

much

attention

as

it

deserves.

Many

of

my

con-

clusions

concerning

the

influence of

Hesiod

on

Empedocles'

style

were

reached

before

reading

Traglia's study,

and

it

was

gratifying

to

find

agreement.






146

JACKSON

P. HERSHBELL

Flickwerk

with

little or

no

originality.

In

order to avoid

this,

the

following

schema

will

be

observed:

(a)

considerationof

sty-

listic and verbal similarities; (b) compari-

son

of

major

themes

or

pivotal concepts,

e.g.,

in the

case of

Empedocles

his

doctrines

of

Love

and

Strife

and the roots of

all

things ;

and

(c) subsidiary

themes, e.g.,

the

degeneration

of mankind

and natural

law,

apparently

common

to

both.

To

some

extent

these

categories overlap,

and verbal

and

stylistic

considerations

cannot

always

be

divorced

from

those

more

obviously

philosophical.

The

overall

purpose

of this

study,

apart

from

showing

the

extent of

Hesiodic

influ-

ence,

is

to offset

those

interpretations

of

Empedocles

which

begin

with

later

think-

ers,

notably Aristotle,

and

work

backwards.

Of

course,

were

it not

for

Aristotle's

preser-

vation

of

some

ipsissima

verba of

Empedo-

cles,

our

knowledge

of his

work

would

be

much

less.

It

must

constantly

be

kept

in

mind, however,

that Aristotle

brought

to his

interpretationof Empedoclesa terminology

and

concepts

in some cases

quite

alien

to

the

poet

of

Akragas.

For

example,

although

Empedocles'

doctrine

of the four roots

of

things

no

doubt

anticipates

Aristotle's

the-

ory

of the four elements

(stoicheia),

it is

anachronistic

and

misleading

to

identify

the

two;

for Aristotle

the

real

elements

of the

physical

world

are not

earth, air,

fire

and

water,

as

they

were

for

Empedocles,

but the

primary

opposites: hot, cold, wet,

and

dry.

A considerationof Hesiodic influence is,

of

course,

in no

way

designed

to

minimize

the

originality

of

Empedocles' thought

or

his own

impact

on

following generations.

H.

Diels,

who

regarded

Empedocles'

system

as

ein

interessanter

Ekleticismus,

found

in

it

wenig

originellen

Gehalte.

But

such

a

judgment

seems

harsh,

especially

when

it

is

remembered

hat Parmenides'

poem,

de-

spite

the

apparent

novelty

of his

thesis,

also contains reminiscencesof the work of

his

predecessors,

ncluding

the

poetic

tradi-

tion

of

Homer

and

Hesiod.6

No

doubt

this

tradition

was

in

the cultural

atmosphere

of

ancient Greece, and Wilamowitz's inciden-

tal

remark that

Empedocles

knew

nothing

of

eastern

Greek

poetry except

Homer and

Hesiod, may

well

be

correct.7

Given

the

assumption,

however,

that the

epic

tradi-

tion had a

pervasive

and

deep-rooted

nflu-

ence on the

culture of

Empedocles'

time,

and

that he

drew

from

it

in

developing

his

own

poetical

thought,

it

does

not

follow

that he

was

merely

an

imitator or thinker

with

little or

no

originality.

What

must

be

kept

in

mind

is

the

extent and

manner in

which

he

reshaped

or further

developed

the

tradition,

and

even reacted

against

it.

In

view

of

Xenophanes'

and

Heraclitus'

ex-

plicit

criticisms

of Homer

and Hesiod

and

the

implicit

attack

of

Parmenides

on the

thought

processes

representedby

the

latter,

it

would

be

surprising

if

Empedocles'

en-

deavors were

wholly

without

critical or

polemical

ntent.8 It

is

by

no means

uncom-

mon for a thinker to be both indebted to

and critical of

his

predecessors.

The

problem

of

determining

the influ-

ence

of Hesiod

on

Empedocles

is,

of

course,

somewhat

complicated

in

two

respects.

First,

it

is

not

always

certain

which

lines

or

part

lines

in

the

two

undoubtedly genuine

poems

of

Hesiod,

the

Theogony

and Works

and

days,

are

original

and

not

composed

or

inserted

by

later

rhapsodes. Similarly,

not

all the

fragments

of

Empedocles' poems

have

been considered

genuine

or are free

of

textual

problems. Second,

given

the simi-

,

H.

Diels,

Gorgias

und

Empedokles,

Sitzungs-

berichte

der

preussischen

Akademie

19

(1884)

343.

6

The

concept

of Eros in

B13

of Parmenides'

poem

is no

doubt

borrowed

from Hesiod. For

Homeric

influence,

see E. A.

Havelock,

Parmeni-

des and

Odysseus,

Harvard studies

in

classical

philology

63

(1958)

133-143.

7

U.

von

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,

Die

KaOap-

p~ol

des

Empedokles,

Sitzungsberichte

der

preus-

sischen Akademie

27

(1929)

654.

Wilamowitz

writes: Von

den ionischen

Philosophen

hat

er

kaum Kenntnis gehabt; ausser Homer und Hesiod

hat

er nichts

von Poesie

aus

dem

Osten

gekannt.

8

For Parmenides'

attack

on

Hesiod,

see

Dolin,

HSCP

66,

93-98.






HESIOD

AND

EMPEDOCLES

147

larity

between some

of the

ideas and

even

language

of

both

thinkers,

can one

be

certain that

Empedocles

was

directly

ac-

quainted

with Hesiod's

poems?

He could

have derived

his

knowledge

of Hesiod

from

another

source, e.g.,

an itinerant

rhapsode.

Another

possibility

is

that

Hesiod

and

later,

Empedocles,

were

dependent

on

another

source

from

which

they

drew some

of

their

material,

e.g.,

Orphism.9

Though

doubts such as

the

latter

cannot

perhaps

be

dispelled

entirely,

a

considera-

tion

of verbal

and

stylistic

similarities

will

make it at least probable that Empedocles

had

direct

acquaintance

with Hesiod's

works,

and that

the echoes

of these in

the

fragments

of

his

own

poems

are

not

wholly

accidental. As for

the matter of

authentic-

ity,

there

is

no

unanimity

among

scholars

of

Hesiod as

to

which

lines

or

passages

were

original

to his

poems.

According

to

Jacoby,

more

than

half

of

the

Theogony

is

spurious,

and

Wilamowitz

refused to

print

the

last

sixty-four

lines

of

the Works and

days

(they

constitute

that

part

usually

known as

the

Days).1?

In

the

case of

Empedocles,

it

has

recently

been

argued

that

B111

(a

fragment

of

nine

lines)

is

spurious.11

In

general,

however,

extreme

sceptical posi-

tions such as these have not been

favorably

received

by

other

scholars,

and

for the

pur-

poses

of this

study

it will be

assumed,

unless

there

is

good

evidence

to the

contrary,

that

the

passages

of Hesiod and

Empedocles

under

consideration

are

genuine.

As

a

rule,

textual

problems,

unless

significant

to

the

argument,

will be confined

to

footnotes.

I.

Stylistic

and Verbal

Similarities

Since

Sturz's collection

and

study

of

the

fragments

of

Empedocles,

Empedocles Ag-

rigentinus

(1805),

all

editors have

consid-

ered

the

dedicatory

verse to

Pausanias:

IIavavt`L,

•TV

, KXVOtL,

&a'it•povos

'AYXrTEo

iE

( But

do

you

listen,

O

son of

skilled An-

chises )

as the

first

fragment

of

Empedo-

cles'

poem

On nature.

This is

not

to

say

that

it

was,

in

fact,

the

very

beginning

of

the

poem,

since the

particle

8E

uggests

that

one or more lines precededit. But the for-

mula

o-u

v

(see

also

a; 8,'o0v

of

B2.8,

or

V'

of

B110.6

and

acr

y'

of

B3.6)

although

found

in

Homer,

occurs

with

frequency

in

Hesiod's

Works

and

days

(v.

27,

213, 248,

274,

etc.)

where

together

with

the

similar

formulae

o-

8E,

•,'lEs

8,

AXXa

oS,

it

is

usu-

ally

used

to introduce

a

new set

of

ideas or

moral

teachings.

Moreover,

t

has

the func-

tion of

holding

together

the

often

discon-

nected

parts

of

the

poem and, especially

after

long

digressions,

of

uniting

them

to

the

main

thread

of the

discourse.

Because

9

In

his

commentary

on

Hesiod's

Theogony,

M.

L.

West claims that

it

is

unlikely

that

Orphism

yet

existed at the

time

of

Hesiod.

See Hesiod The-

ogony,

ed.

M. L.

West

(Oxford

1966),

p.

282.

Orphic

influence

has often been

seen on

Empedo-

cles,

but

this has

been

questioned

by

Millerd. C.

E.

Millerd,

On the

interpretation

of

Empedocles

(Chicago

1908),

p.

10-11. The

whole

problem

of

Orphism

in

antiquity

is

quite

complicated

and

speculative.

In

general,

the

negative

conclusions

of

I. M.

Linforth in

his

The

arts

of Orpheus

(Berke-

ley 1941)

are

persuasive.

There

is

also no

over-

whelming

evidence of

Pythagorean

influence.

B129

has

often

been taken

as

a

reference

to

Pythagoras

himself,

but

Jaeger

points

out that

we

can

hardly

consider

the

reference

to

Pythag-

oras well

established.

Jaeger,

Theology,

p.

151.

1o

West

refers

to

F.

Jacoby's

Hesiodi

Theogonia

(Berlin

1930)

as

a

cross

between

Aristarchus

and

a

railway

timetable ; West,

Theogony, p.

102.

Concerning possible

interpolations

in

the The-

ogony

West

writes: The

clearest

signs

of remanie-

ment

are,

in

my

opinion,

in the

description

of the

underworld,

720-819.

...

But in

general,

unsub-

stantiated

suspicion

is all that

one

has

to

go

on.

West,

Theogony,

p.

50.

Solmsen

is inclined to

accept

the

genuineness

of the

underworld

passage.

See

Solmsen,

Hesiod, p.

60 f.

No

argument

in

this

paper

depends

on whether

the

Days

is

genuine.

11

See

B.

A. Van

Groningen,

Le

fragment

111

d'Empedocle,

Classica

et

mediaevalia

17

(1956)

47-61.

According

to him

the

fragment

is not

genuine

but

l'exageration

de

ce

qu'on

savait

d'Empedocle

dans les

milieux

plus

ou

moins

culti-

ves,

la

cristallisation de

ce

que

racontait

le

grand

public,

mal informe

et

avide

de

merveilleux

.

.

(p.

68).

His

arguments

have a

degree

of

persua-

siveness,

but no

part

of

this

study

depends

on the

genuineness

of

B111.






148

JACKSON

P. HERSHBELL

of its occurrence n the first

fragment

of On

nature,

some scholars

have

suggested

that a

proem

or

introduction

similar

to that of

Worksand days also appearedin Empedo-

cles'

poem.12

In

any

case,

the

remains

of

the

latter

begin

with

an

expression

charac-

teristic

of

Hesiod.

The

similarity

between

Hesiod's

poems

and

those

of

Empedocles

does

not

end,

however,

with

the use

of a common

formula.

Like

Hesiod,

Empedocles

calls on the Muses

(B3

and

B131),

but

in neither case

are

their

compositions

exclusively

the

revela-

tions

of

higher powers

who

possess

and

dominate the emotions

and

thoughts

of the

poets.

On the

contrary,

their

personalities

are

expressed,

and

even

some

autobiograph-

ical material

is

contained

in

the

verses

of

their

poems.

In

the

Theogony

Hesiod

men-

tions himself

by

name

(v. 22)

and

describes

the

appearance

of

the Muses

to

him

while

he

was

tending

sheep

under Mount

Helicon;

in

the Works

and

days

he

frequently

refers

to the

facts of his

life, including

how

he

visited Chalcis in Euboea and won a prize

at the funeral

games

there

(651-662).

So

in

the

first

fragment

of

the

Purifications

(B 112),

Empedocles

describes his

itinerant

life,

and the honor

he received

from crowds

desiring

to

hear his

oracles

and

words

of

healing.

Both

poets

direct

their

teaching

to

a

specific

individual:

in the

Works

and

days

Hesiod advises

his

brother,

Perses,

and

in On nature

Empedocles

instructs his

friend,

Pausanias.

In

fact,

both

poets

use

the same term at the beginning of their

address:

KUXIJO

( listen

or

pay

heed,

W.

d. 9

and

B

1).

For

Hesiod the verb does

not

necessarily

mean

hear or

listen but

pay

heed whether

with

eye

or ear.

In

a

similar

fashion,

Empedocles

does

not

put

a

premium

on

any

one

of

the

senses,

but

seems

to consider

them

all

as

being

paths

to

knowledge

(B3,

12).

In

general,

as

Kranz

and Guthrie

have

observed, Empedocles'

address to

a

single

person

in

On

nature

puts

it

in the

category

of

admonitory

poetry

(it

is

a

Mahngedicht,

according

to

Kranz)

of

which the Works

and

days

is the

most famous

example.13

But in this workHesiod's rede is not always

confined to

Perses;

on occasion

he addresses

the

judges

or

rulers of the

land

(e.g.,

202

f.

and

248

f.),

and

in

the

Theogony

an

un-

specified

general

audience. So

in

the

frag-

ments

assigned

to

the

Purifications,

Em-

pedocles

addresses his

fellow

citizens

in

Akragas,

and

perhaps

in

both

poems

he has

mankind

as

a

whole

in

mind.

Moreover,

both

poets

working

under some kind

of

divine

inspiration

seem

to

have

occasional

contempt

for

their

fellow

men.

In

the

Theogony

Hesiod's Muses

abuse

him and

his

fellow

shepherds

as

being

rustic or

boorish . . .

wretched

things

of shame

(v.

26),

and in

the

Works

and

days,

this

present

race of men

is

of

iron,

and,

in

part,

violent

and

evil,

subject

to

death

(175

f.).

The

judges

of the land

are bribe-devour-

ing

(v. 39)

and

Hesiod holds them

in

contempt

for not

knowing proverbs

such as

the half is greaterthan the whole (v. 40).

They

are,

in

fact,

fools

(v?7rtLOL).

o

are

those

men, according

to

Empedocles,

whose

thoughts

are not

far-reaching (B

11)

and

assume the existence

of

what is

not;

men are doomed to

swift

destruction,

boastful of

having

found

the

Whole

(B2);

indeed,

they

suffer

from

madness

(pjavia,

B3.1);

do

not

speak

rightly

(B9);

and

are

murdering

and

feasting

on one another

(B136).

On

the

whole,

neither

poet

seems

to have a very flatteringview of the human

race.

Yet another

similarity

is found

in

the

claim that Hesiod

and

Empedocles

make to

the effect that their words

are true

and

without

deception.

In

the

Theogony,

im-

mediately

after

castigating

Hesiod's fellow

men,

the

Muses

declare:

We

know

how

to

speak

many

false

things

as

though

they

were

true: but

we know when we wish

to

utter true things (27-28). Their speech

12

Kranz,

Neue Jahrbiicher

27,

78.

13

Guthrie,

History,

II, p.

137

and

Kranz,

Neue

Jahrbiicher,

78.






HESIOD AND

EMPEDOCLES 149

suggests

that

Hesiod has

previously

been

occupied

with

false

matters,

or even

that

the tales

of other

rhapsodes

were

not

true.

Again

in the Works and

days,

Hesiod de-

clares

flatly

to

his brother:

ErT)Irvula

vOqrlcal-

/v

(v.

10).

So

in

Empedocles

the

claim

of

truth

is made

in

B114: I know

that

truth

is

present

in

the

words

which

I

shall

speak

(...

.

o01a

fv

oivcK

X~O'q

apa pvOots

.

.).

Also

in

B17.26

Empedocles

declares,

but

do

you

listen to the

unerring

course

of

my

argument

(oU

8'Kovc

EXdyov

OdoXOV

OVK

a7Tra?TqdXOv)

ords often taken as a

deliberate

imitation of Parmenides' .

. .

listening

to

the

deceptive

order of

my

words

(.

KdOU IOV

i)wV

c7r.WV

77raTqXoV

aKOVWV

B8.51).

Empedocles

says

he

will

teach

the

truth,

whereas

Parmenides

avowedly

puts

forth

false

teaching.

But there

seems to

be

little

doubt that the

prototype

for

both

of

these

passages

is the address

of

the Muses

to

Hesiod

in

verses

27-28 of

the

Theogony.14

Like

Hesiod,

and

against Parmenides,

Em-

pedocles

is

anxious, though

his reasons are

not wholly clear, to claim truth for his

poems.

The

foregoing

similarities

of

thought

and

vocabulary might,

of

course,

be

wholly

acci-

dental

were

it

not

for

other

verbal

echoes

of

Hesiod's

poetry

in

the

fragments

of

Emped-

ocles'

works,

which

will now

be

examined.

In

many

instances

the

phrases

used

by

Em-

pedocles

are

given

new

meaning

or

other-

wise

reworked,

but the

borrowing

seems

clearly

present.

In B54, for example, Empedocles de-

clares that

air

sank

down

into the earth

with

long

roots

(ptaKpiL•r•L

KTa~X

Va

TO70

putats).

So in Works

and

days (v.

19)

Hesiod had

described how Cronos

who

dwells

in

the

aether,

set

Eris

in

the roots

of

the earth

(yarlP

iv

Aiga~).

Again

in

Theog.

728,

as

Traglia

following

Diels

noted,

the

roots of the

earth

(yq9s

k1aL)

and the

sea

yielding

no harvest

grew

above

Tartarus.15

Since a context is

lacking

for the verse

of

Empedocles,

it is impossible to understand

the

expression

fully,

but that

it is not

an

allusion

to

Xenophanes'

doctrine

is

demon-

strated

by

B39

where

the

latter's

view

that

the

roots of

the earth extend

indefinitely

(see

Xenophanes'

B28)

seems

to be

com-

batted. Further

discussion

of roots

in

Hesiod

and

Empedocles

will

be

taken

up

in

a consideration

of their

main

concepts.

In

B82.2 the

expression

ir

uTIaLapo^UL

tLEXEcuLv

s found in Theog. 152 and W. d.

149.16

Again

when

Empedocles

describes

the cosmic

sphere during

the

reign

of

Love

(B29)

or his

divinity

of

holy,

ineffable

will

(B134) opposing

the usual

ancient Greek

anthropomorphic

onception

of the

gods,

he

says

o

.

..

Ar

.

v'.roLO

.

.

c.

adcYovrat,

using,

in

part,

Hesiod's

description

of

the

giants

in

the

Theogony

from

whose

shoulders

spring

an

hundred arms

(d&r'

~wv

dlraovro,

150)

and

whose

fifty

heads

are set

on

strong

shoulders

(irt'

UTrflapot•L

LuahfcLv,152). It

is,

moreover, empting

to conclude that

Em-

pedocles'

description

of

monstrous

figures,

(e.g.,

foreheads

without

necks,

or

creatures

with innumerable

hands, B57-B61),

al-

though

the result

of his

own

imaginative

powers

and

representing

stages

of

organic

development

in

his

cosmic

cycle,

was

in-

spired

by

Hesiod's

description

of

the

Cy-

clops,

Titans,

and

Giants

in the

Theogony.

In

B96.1 another

apparent

reminiscence

of Hesiod's Theogony is found. The earth

is

...

iv

EVTErpVOLt

odvotat,

the

phrase being

partly

an echo of the

yala

EVpv

Vpvos3

of

Theog.

117.

Also

the

term

x'avos,

borrowed

14

The

similarity

of

the Muses'

message

to

Hesiod and

the

goddess' message

to

Parmenides

has been noted

by

Jaeger,

Theology,

p.

94; Dolin,

HSCP

66,

94.

That

B17,

26 of

Empedocles'

poem

is

an

obvious echo

of

Parmenides'

B8,

52

has

been

noted

by

Guthrie, History,

II,

138.

15

Traglia,

Studi,

p.

31.

Many

of

the

following

examples

used

in

this

part

of the

paper

can

also be

found in

Traglia.

16

G. S. Kirk

claims

that o'r

q

o•apoito

a~tXEo-oV

in

Theog.

152

is

an

inappropriate

elaboration

pointlessly

based

on the

Homeric

phrase

'vt

-yvaArrroZL

AeeoXveL.

Kirk,

The

structure and

aim of the

Theogony,

(Entretiens

sur

l'antiquite'

classique,

vol.

7,

Geneva

1962), p.

78.

But

von

Fritz

rightly

finds

. . .

der

Ausdruck

.

. . an

dieser Stelle

nicht

unpassend (ibid.,

p.

107).






150

JACKSON

P.

HERSHBELL

from metal

working

and found

in

Homer,17

is

used

by

Hesiod

in a

comparison

n which

the

scorching

of

the earth

by vapor

and

its

melting

by the heat of Zeus' thunderbolts

during

the

Titanomachia

is

likened to the

melting

of

tin in crucibles

or to

iron

which

is

melted

in

the

earth

by

fires

in

mountain

dens. One

cannot exclude

the

possibility

that

Empedocles'

notion

of

fires

burning

beneath the

surface

of

the earth

(B52)

was

influenced

by

this

passage

in

Hesiod.

But

perhaps

the

two

most notable

exam-

ples

of

Hesiodic

influence

on

Empedocles'

language

are

found in

two

fragments

of the

Purifications:

the

description

of the

oracle

of

Necessity

in

B

115 and the

catalogues

of

divinities

in

B122-123.

In

B115

Empedocles

announces

in

a

solemn

manner

an

.

.

.

oracle of

Necessity,

an ancient

decree

of

the

gods,

sealed with

firm-based oaths.

. .

.

What follows

sug-

gests

not

only

a

strong

Hesiodic

influence

on

the

general

thought

of

the

fragment,

but

also its

language

and

style. According

to

the ancient decree of the gods when a

being through

sinfulness

defiles

his

own

limbs

with

blood

(murder)

or

following

strife

has

sworn

a

false

oath,

even

one

of

the

spirits

(8altovjs)

who

have

been

al-

lotted

great

length

of

life, they

should

wan-

der thrice

10,000

seasons

away

from

the

blessed... .

First,

these verses

remind

one

of

Hesiod's Works

and

days,

where

there

is

a

description

of

a

golden

race

of

men

who

after

their death become

guiltless

daimones

. guardians of mortal men who watch

over

righteous

decrees

and

savage deeds,

wandering

everywhere

over

the

earth,

clothed

in mist

(W.

d.

121-125).18

Sec-

ond,

if

the verses

of

B

115

are

compared

with 793-806

of the

Theogony,

it becomes

apparent

how

similar

the

thought

of

Em-

pedocles

is

to that of

Hesiod.

In

Theog.

793-806,

the notion

of

exile from the com-

pany

of

the

gods

occurs

in

connection

with

Hesiod's account of

the

river

Styx,

by

whose

frigidwaterthe oaths of the godsaresworn.

And

in

both

cases

there

is

banishment

for

oath-breaking

(though

in

Empedocles'

ac-

count

the

primal

sin seems

to

be

shedding

of

blood;

for

Hesiod

it

is

oath-breaking

alone).

Moreover,

the attack on oath-

breaking

is

stylistically

similar:

03

KEV

7•V

iErlopKOV

OTiE~oAd

oo'aood

y

(Theog.

793);

and

in

Empedocles

(B115.4):

.

.

.

'3

K(E)

iErKopKOVaprVjTas TroodTcrcr.

The

latter

line

is

considered

by

Knatz

and

later

Wilamo-

witz

to

be an

addition from

the

Theogony,

and

not

original

to

B

115 of

Empedocles'

poem.19

But

their

arguments

are not de-

cisive,

and that

Empedocles probably

had

the

passage

from

Hesiod

in

mind

is shown

by

comparison

of

v. 800

of

the

Theogony:

aXhos

y'E

E

Taov

XeTa

XaE

rdrEpos aEOXos

with v.

12

of

B115:

ahXog

8'

i~

ahhov

x•xera,

•vovylov,

s

7rarCTES,

nd

by

the use

of

~'yv'yos

( primeval )

in

Theog.

806,

which is found in another fragmentof Em-

pedocles

(B84.7).

In

Hesiod

it

describes

the

water

of

Styx;

in

Empedocles

the

ele-

mental

fire

within

the human

eye,

which

incidentally

also

contains water.

Since the

epithet

is

rare

and

not found

in the Homeric

poems,

there is likelihood

that

it is

taken

from

Hesiod's

Theogony.

But there

is

a difference

between

the

con-

ceptions

of

Hesiod

and

Empedocles

n

these

passages,

and

that

is,

for

Hesiod

the

exiled

god

remainsa

god;

he is set

apart

from the

human

race,

and

the

gap separating

him

from

mortals

remains

the

same

in

exile.

For

Empedocles

the exiled

daimon

falls

from

his

noble

estate,

and

goes

from

one

mortal

form to

another

( .

. .

becoming

in

time

all

sorts of

perishable

things,

taking

in

exchange

difficult

paths

of

life

in succes-

sion, B115.7-8),

though

it

is

not

wholly

clear whether

the

identity

of the

daimon is

17

On

Empedocles'

use of terms

borrowed

from

various

crafts,

see F.

Solmsen's

interesting

article,

Nature as craftsman in Greek thought, Journal

of

the

history of ideas,

24

(1963)

476

f.

18

For

further

discussion,

see

Guthrie,

History,

II,

p.

264.

19See

Wilamowitz,

Sitzungsberichte

der

preus-

sischen

Akademie

27,

634. See

Traglia's

criticism

of

their

view,

Studi,

p.

173,

n. 35.






HESIOD

AND

EMPEDOCLES

151

somehow

preserved

or

destroyed

in

the

process.

Yet another

fragment

of

Empedocles

showing the influence of Hesiod is B122-

123:

There were the

Earth

goddess (Chthonie)

and

the

keen-sighted

Sun

goddess

(Heliope),

and

bloody

Strife

and

Harmony

sedate of

look,

Beauty

and

Ugliness,

Speed

and

Loitering,

charming

Truth,

and dark-haired

Obscurity.

Growth

and

Decay, Sleeping

and

Waking,

Movement and

Rest,

many-crowned Pomp

and

Defilement,

Silence

and

Speech.

Though there is only one name the same,

i.e.,

N-qAEp-rq,

Truth or

Infallibility,

the

primary

model for

these

fragments

of Em-

pedocles' poem

is

probably

the

Catalogue

of

Nymphs

found in II.

18.39

f.20

It

is

not

an

unimaginative

imitation

of

Homer,

but

shows

originality

and

skill

in

invention. The

fragments, however,

are

not

without

dis-

tinct

echoes

of

Hesiod's

Theogony.

In

fact,

the Stoic

philosopher

Cornutus

(1st

cent.

A.D.),

who saw

in

these

fragments Empedo-

cles' recognitionof the differencesor antin-

omies

of nature

(Staoopa'

r6rv

'vrwv,

com-

pared

the

variety

of

these names with those

of the

Titans

in

Hesiod's

Theogony.21

Thus

in

both

poets

he

saw

the

symbolic expres-

sion

of

the

contrariety

and

diversity

of

the

forces which

govern

this world.

But

as

Traglia pointed

out,

the

analogy

between

the divinities

of

Empedocles

and

the

Titans

of

Hesiod is

vague

and

reflects,

in

general,

the Stoic

training

of

Cornutus.22

A

more

accurate

comparison

between these

frag-

ments

of

Empedocles

and

Hesiod's

The-

ogony

is

found

in

the

Catalogue

of

the

Nereids

(240-264)

and of

the

Oceanids

(337-370), especially

in the

use of

proper

names with

endings

in

-4•:

lHlEhO,

lpvUv41,

Zcvd,,

MEvr6O4,

tc.

(Theog. 349-361)

and

Kahhkatr4,

PVaCI,Ktv4,

MEya/rrC

(B

122-

123).

Moreover,

some

of

the names

of

Empedocles'divinities are those of Hesiod:

thus the

goddesses

Nqp

EprmT4

nd

?o4owa

of

B122

can

be

compared

with

the

Nereid

NrltEtpr4'

of

Theog.

262 and

with

the

Oceanid

?od

of

Theog.

354. Both

poets

also

use

the

adjective

pdrraaa,

Hesiod

ap-

plying

it

to

HIErpa0l

v. 357)

and

Empedo-

cles

to

Nq7tkEprmq

B 122.4).

Lastly,

Emped-

ocles'

HoXvoTEr4avo

.

..

Mey/IrTO

(B123.2)

echoes

E1-YTEavov

...'AAXtyv8

of

Theog.

255.

Other

similarities

of

style

and

language

can

be

cited.

For

example,

Bignone

observed

that

the

formula

with

which

Hesiod

dis-

tinguished

the

different

ages

of

men,

acrhp

'?rd

Ka•

roAro

(W.

d.

156;

cf.

v.

140 and

120)

corresponds

o the formula

with which

Empedocles

distinguished

the

different

mo-

ments

of

the

cosmic

cycle:

B30.1;

B59.1.23

In

the

Diels-Kranz

commentary

the

phrase

taro EavTrmO

in

B29.3

used of the

cosmic

sphere is comparedwith Theog. 126, where

starry

Heaven is considered

equal

to

the

Earth.24

In

the Works and

days (v.

277)

occurs a

formula:

xOv

p

1vKc

Oipcl

KaL

olovoZi

we

rlEvot3,

which

may

be

echoed

in

fragments

assigned

to

Empedocles'

poem

On

nature:

B20.6-7, B21.11,

and B23.7.

Traglia

saw

the

model

of

B132.1:

&ApXl03

Odtv

rrparrt8wv

K

TaaTro

Taoorov

(from

which

is

perhaps

derived

Vergil's

felix

qui potuit

rerum

cognoscerecausas )

in

Theog.

954:

OX0Los,

O

i•ya

cpyov

iV

aOavaTroLv

avvooaaa

val~a

awr-avro.255

A

similar sentiment is also

found at the end

of

the

Works and

days

(826-827):

Trd.v

Ev8al~jLv

TE

Ka

Apo•XLo0,

,

...

ipyay•

AVa oC

aO,0,aTOLO'V.

In

view

of

the

preceding

linguistic

and

stylistic

similarities,

there is a

high

degree

of

probability

that

Empedocles

knew

the

works

of

Hesiod

and

borrowed from them.

20

J.

Burnet,

Early

Greek

philosophy (New

York,

reprint

1957), p.

223,

n. 2. See

also

Solmsen,

Hesiod,

p.

46.

There

is little doubt that the

cata-

logue

is

pre-Hesiodic;

Hesiod

perhaps

modelled

his

catalogue

on

it,

and

Empedocles

modelled

his,

in

turn,

on

Hesiod.

21

DK,

I,

p.

361.

22

Traglia,

Studi,

p.

38.

2

E.

Bignone, Empedocle (Turin

1916),

p.

218,

n. 3.

24

DK,

I,

p.

325,

the note on

v. 5.

25 Traglia, Studi, p.

40.






152

JACKSON

.

HERSHBELL

There

is,

of

course,

a

tendency,

no doubt

partly

arising

from

metrical

requirements,

for

Empedocles

to alter or

reshape

Hesiodic

formulae. But Empedocles'borrowing rom

Hesiod is

not confined to

language

and

style;

it

extends

also to his

conceptual

scheme,

and

similarities between some

of

the

pivotal

concepts

of Hesiod

and

Emped-

ocles

will

now

be

considered.

II.

The

Cosmologies

of

Hesiod

and

Empedocles

Although Hesiod in his Theogony mus-

ters

an

enormous

catalogue

of divine

powers

or

gods

in

the

order

of their

generation

with

the

unmistakable

purpose

of

identifying

the

birth and

subsequent

reign

of

Zeus

as

the

climax

of

cosmic

history,

the

poem

is

not

without

cosmological

ntent.

In

v.

108-111,

for

example,

the Muses

are invoked to

tell

how

at first

gods

and

earth

came

to

be and

rivers and

the boundless sea

.

.

. and the

shining

stars

and

the

wide

heaven

above,

and the godswho wereborn fromthem....

In

subsequent

sections

of the

poem

cosmo-

logical

emphases

are

present.

For

example,

as

Solmsen

has

observed,

when

Hesiod

speaks

of

Gaea's

giving

birth to

Uranos,

he

is

actually

thinking

of heaven and

earth,

Gaea

herself

being

both

the earth and

the

goddess

representing

the

earth.26

More-

over,

although

she is

a

goddess

and

mother,

she is also

a

cosmic

principle.

From her

are

born

heaven

and

the

mountains

and the

sea,

without a male consort, and she remains

active

in the

backgroundduring

the

events

leading

to

Zeus'

final

victory.

In

the

The-

ogony

no

origin

is

given

for the human

race,

but

in

the Works

and

days

(v.

108)

Earth

is said

to be the common source of

men and

gods

(%Ode

yEydacmLL;

ompare

with

the

aXXoOhv

v-qrw^v

f

B23.9-10).27

Especially

in

the

description

of the

underworld

following

the Titanomachia

(Theog.

720-819),

there

is

emphasis

on a

cosmological descriptionof the world. For

example,

the

water of

Styx,

who was

known

earlier

as

the

daughter

of

Ocean

(v.

361

and

776),

is now described

as

being

a

tenth

part

of the

ocean

(v. 789).

Tartarus

itself

is

a

great

gap

which contains

the

roots

of

earth

and

sea

(v.

728);

later

in

v.

738 and

809

are

mentioned

the

springs

and

bor-

ders

(wr~ya- Ka' wrlpara)

of

earth,

sea,

heaven,

and even Tartarus.

Owing

to

its

possible

influence

on Em-

pedocles'

thought,

Hesiod's

description

of

the

underworld

bears

closer

examination.

After

the

poet

concludes with

the banish-

ment of

the

Titans

to

Tartarus,

in

720-819

he

envisions

a

three-storey

universe which

seems

to

be

symmetrical.

Heaven

is

at

the

top, and,

according

to

Hesiod,

it would

take a

falling

anvil nine

nights

and

days

to

reach

the earth on

the

tenth;

from

earth

to

Tartarus

which

lies

on

the

bottom,

it

would take another nine days and nights.

Earth

would

then

lie

in the center of

the

cosmos,

and on

either side there

would

be

two

equal

distances

(compare

this

with

the

doxographical

reports

of

Empedocles'

sperical

cosmos

with

its

halves

being

hemi-

spheres,

earth

lying

in

the

center).28

Tar-

tarus

itself

is enclosed

by

a

high

fence of

bronze,

and

some

way

above

this

are

the

roots

of the earth

self-grown

(/reov'a•a),

and of the

unharvestedsea

(v.

728).

Per-

haps, as M. L. West points out, Hesiod

envisioned

the

division

between

earth and

sea

as

gradually

disappearing

n the

under-

world,

the

two

branching

out

into

roots

intertwined with one

another.29

Perhaps

below

this the

distinction

between

earth

and

water

disappears;

or

working

n

reverse

from

a

basic

indeterminate

something,

a

tangle

of

determinate entities

emerges

26Solmsen,

Hesiod, p.

58.

Solmsen's

discussion

of

Hesiod's

cosmology

is

especially

valuable.

Ibid.,

58 f.

27

On this

verse

in the Works and

days,

see

U. von

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,

Hesiodos

erga

(Berlin, reprint 1962), p.

54

f.

28

Guthrie,

History,

II,

p.

190

f. has

an

interest-

ing discussion of the shape of the cosmos, though

he

does

not

show

the

caution of

Millerd;

he

sees

Orphic

influence.

Millerd,

On

interpretation, p.

10.

29

West, Theogony, p.

361.






HESIODAND

EMPEDOCLES

153

which,

in

turn,

become more

and more

sep-

arate,

developing

into

the discrete

masses

of

the

world.

In

738

or,

if

this

line

be

rejected, in 809 the root metaphor

gives

way

to that

of

springs

and

sources

(iriyal),

the former

metaphor

perhaps being

appro-

priate only

to the solid

earth,

whereas

the

notion

of

sources

or

springs

is

appro-

priate

to

that of

the ocean.30

Finally

in

810-813,

the

poet

tries

to fuse the

image

of

roots

in

space

with

the

image

of

a

palace

hall and

its

threshold:

There

are

the

gleaminggates

and the brazen

threshold set immovable, compacted with

roots

that are

continuous,

elf-grown....

Out

at

the

end,

away

from

all the

gods,

the Titans

dwell

across

the

misty

gap.

But

the

glorious

allies

of

loud-crashing

Zeus

have

their

dwell-

ing

on

Ocean's oundations.

..

(810-815)

Once more the term

roots

appears,

prob-

ably

overlapping

with

the

word

founda-

tions

(0qdCO0oLt)

applied

to Ocean.

Up

to

this

point

Hesiod has

spoken

of

roots

or

sources

of

earth,

sea,

sky

or

heaven,

and

Tartarus; now to these is addedthe founda-

tions of

Ocean.

Again

in

the

Works

and

days

the

idea of

roots

appears

(v.

18-19).

Here the

con-.

trast

is

between

Cronos

dwelling

in the

air

and

the

roots of the

earth. In

the

heaven

or

sky

Eris

( Strife )

has

no

func-

tion;

it

busies itself

only

among

men,

and

therefore has

its

dwelling

in

the

depths

of

the

earth.

But that

the term

roots has no

greater meaning

than

the

depths

of

the

earth,

especially

in

view

of

its

use in

the

Theogony,

seems

doubtful.31

In

Hesiod's

poems

the term

is on

the

way

to

having

some kind

of

cosmological

significance.

Almost

at

the

very

beginning

of

Hesiod's

account

of the world's

origin

in the

The-

ogony,

the

poet

introduces

Eros

(Love)

as

one of

the oldest and fairest

of

the

gods,

coeval with Earth and Heaven

(v. 120).

And

although

Hesiod

does

not

assign

a

spe-

cific role

to Eros in the

processes

of

cosmic

and divine

generation,

there is

little

doubt

that

the

early appearance

of the

god

in

the

poem (who

is

never

mentioned

again

ex-

cept

in connection

with

Aphrodite's

birth

in

v.

201)

reflects Hesiod's

recognition

of

the

important

function of

sexual union

in

the

origin

of the cosmos

and of the divine

fam-

ilies within

it. In

the remainder of

the

Theogony,

the formulae

describing

sexual

union are referred

to Philotes and

Aphro-

dite,

and

it can be assumed

that

they

take

over the function

of Eros.

In

205-206,

Aphrodite's

activity

in human life

is

de-

scribed

where

she

is

present

in

the

whisper-

ings

of

maidens and

smiles and

deceits...

.

In other

words,

Eros is not

only

in

the

background

of

divine

matings;

she is

also

present

in

human

activities.

In addition to Eros or Love, Eris or

Strife

also

appears

in

the

Theogony

(v.

225),

later

to have

a

major

function in

the

Works and

days.

Although

she is

listed

among

the children of

Night,

Eris

has,

in

turn,

numerous

offspring:

...

painful

Work

and

Forgetfulness

nd Hun-

ger

and

tearful

Sorrows,

and

Fightings,

Bat-

tles,

Murders,Manslaughters,

Quarrels,Lying

Words,

Disputes,

Lawlessness

and

Bewilder-

ment,

all

dwellingtogether

with one

another,

and Oath who most troublesmen on earth

when

anyone

voluntarily

swears

a false

oath.

(226 f.)

In

Works and

days,

Hesiod

opens

his

ad-

dress

to

Perses with the

doctrine of

Strife

or

Eris, only

now

he

gives

the

malicious

god-

dess

of

the

Theogony

a sister

goddess

who

presides

over

the

wholesome

rivalry

and

competition

of

this

world:

So

then,

there

was not

one kind of

Strife,

but

on

the earth there

are

two. The

one a

man

wouldpraisewhen he

recognized

her;

but the

other

is

blameworthy

...

For one

fostersevil

war and

fighting, being

cruel.

..

. But

the

other

is muchbetter

for

men;

she

rouses

even

30

Ibid.,

p.

364.

31

Wilamowitz

saw

no

greater

meaning

in

the

verse:

Erga, p.

43.

But

if one

accepts

the

priority

of the

Theogony,

the

roots

of

earth

in the

Works and

days

probably

has some

reference

to

the cosmological passages of Hesiod's

previous

poem.

It

is,

of

course,

true

that

in

the absence of

further

discussion

in

Works and

days,

speculation

about the term

is

pointless.






154

JACKSON

P.

HERSHBELL

the

shiftless

to

work;

for

a

man

grows

eager

to work

when

he

considers

his

neighbor

..

(11

f.)

In other words, Strife has not only a

destructive

but also

a

constructive

function

within

the

cosmos.

Having

made the

foregoing

observations

concerning

Hesiod's

thought,

a closer exam-

ination of the

relationship

between

him

and

Empedocles

is

possible.

There

is

little

doubt,

of

course,

that

the

primary

ingredi-

ents

of

the

cosmos,

according

to

Empedo-

cles,

are Love

and Strife and

the

four

roots

of all

things.

Given

these

six

major

fac-

tors, together

with

his

acceptance

of

the

Parmenidean

axiom

that

what

is not is

unintelligible,

Empedocles

is

able to offer

a

description

of the cosmos.

Ontology

culmi-

nates

in

cosmology,

and

in a

passage

remi-

niscent

of

Hesiod's

Theog.

108-111,32

Em-

pedocles

addresses

his

friend Pausanias:

Come,

I

will

tell

you

first

. . . from

which

all

things

which

we now

see came

forth:

earth and

the

many-waved

sea

and

the

moist air and the Titan aetherbindingtight

around the

whole

circle.

(B38)

To be

sure,

the exact

nature

or

composition

of

Empedocles'

roots

and the

specific

roles of

Love

and

Strife

in

relation

to

the

roots

and

in relation to

one

another

remain,

to

some

degree,

unclear.

For

example,

are the

roots

the

minimal

portions

of

reality

or

are

they,

in

turn,

constructed

out

of

even

smaller

particles;

in other

words,

are there

ele-

ments of

elements ?

In

addition to

Love

and Strife are there other powers, e.g.,

Chance

or

Necessity,

which

govern

the

world?

Despite

these

and

other

problems

which

have

been

raised

concerning

the de-

tails

of

Empedocles' thought,

the

general

outlines

seem clear.33

In

essence,

it

will

be

argued,

the

impetus

for

Empedocles'

thought

is found

in

Hesiod,

and

the termi-

nology

and

thought

of

the latter

are taken

over,

reworked and

expanded

to the

extent

that,

using

the

notion

of

roots

and Love

and Strife, Empedocles is able to produce

a

reasonably

complete picture

of the cos-

mos,

a

picture

that

is

at

once

mythical

or

supernatural

and

quasi-scientific

or

natural.

The

roots

are

first

mentioned

in

the

present

order

of

Empedocles'

fragments

in

Diels-Kranz

in

B6:

Hear

first the

four

roots

of

all

things:

bright

Zeus and life-

bringing

Hera and

Aidoneus and

Nestis

who

moistens

a

mortal

spring

with

her

tears.

Though

the

language

of B6

is

quite

different,

this

fragment

is

compared

in

the

Diels-Kranz

commentary

with

Theog.

736

f.

where the four

roots,

i.e.,

those

of

earth,

Tartarus,

sea,

and

heaven,

are

also

men-

tioned in

two

verses.34

In

another

frag-

ment,

B23.9-10, Empedocles

uses,

like

Hesiod,

the

word

spring

(r~y~y)

almost

as

a

synonym

for

root :

Thus let not

decep-

tion

overcome

your

mind

that the

spring

of

perishable

creatures

is

from

any

other

source (presumably the

roots). 3

Earth,

Tartarus,

sea,

and

heaven

were,

of

course,

divine for

Hesiod,

and so it

is

not

surprising

that

Empedocles

gives

divine

names to

his

roots. But the

divine

names

given

in B6

are later

replacedby

a

vocabulary

no

longer

theological

but

cosmological.

In

B

17.18

the

roots are fire and

water

and

earth

and

the

immense

height

of air.

Again

in B22.2 a

similar

phrasing appears.

Fire

specifically

appears

as flame

(B85)

and

sun or

Helios

(B21.3).

In other

words,

the

tendency

already

in

Hesiod's

Theogony

to

see,

for

example,

Gaea

not

only

as

goddess

of the

earth,

but as

earth

itself,

a

cosmic

principle,

is

developed

by

Empedocles

to

the

point

where

the

theological

becomes

subordinate

to,

and

almost vanishes

from

the

cosmo-

logical.

Yet

despite Empedocles'

apparent

preference

for the

plain

language

of

quasi-

scientific

description,

there

is

little doubt

2

This

part

of

the

Theogony

may

also

be com-

pared

with

Parmenides B11.

West, Theogony,

p.

190.

33

For

further

discussion

of these

problems,

the

reader

is referred to

Millerd,

On

interpretation,

and

Guthrie, History,

II.

34

DK,

I,

p.

312.

'

That

the

fragment

refers

to the

roots

is

argued

by Guthrie, History, II,

p.

148.






HESIOD

AND

EMPEDOCLES

155

that

his

roots are

sentient

(see

B

103),

and

at

times

they

seem

to

have

an

activity

of

their

own.

Fire

hides

itself

(,oxa-tEro)

in

the round

pupils

of the

eye (B84.8).

Fire

sends

up

shapes

desiring

to

reach

its like

(B62);

and

in a

passage

highly

reminiscent

both in

thought

and

language

of Works

and

days

(60

f.)

where

Zeus bids

Hephaestus

to

mix

earth

with water

and to

put

in it

the

voice and

strength

of human

kind,

and

fashion

a

charming lovely

shape

of

a

maiden,

Empedocles

describes

Cypris

(Love)

who after

she

had

moistened

the

earth

with

water,

as she fashioned the forms

of

living things gave

them to

swift

fire to

harden

(B73).

If

Aristotle's

report

can

be

trusted,

the

elements

too are

gods

for

Empedocles.36

There

are,

of

course,

similarities as well

as

important

differences between

Empedocles'

divine

roots and

Hesiod's

gods.

Consider

first,

the

concept

of

privileges

or

spheres

of

influence

(r?Tatl)

and allotment

(pozpa)

so

prominent

in

Hesiod's

thought.

For

exam-

ple, from her birth Aphrodite is given the

honor of

going

into

the

assembly

of the

gods,

and

she is allotted

a

portion

of

activ-

ity

in

human

love

(Theog. 203-205).

After

Zeus overcame

his

father

Cronos,

he dis-

tributed to

the

gods

their

portions

and

declared

their

privileges

(Theog.

74-75).

Hecate,

who receives

special

attention in

the

Theogony,

holds

privileges

in

heaven

and

earth,

sits

by kings

in

judgment,

gives

victory

in

battle and

games, is nurse of the

young

(415 f.). Empedocles

also

speaks

of

the

roots as

having

privileges:

Each

is

master

in

a different

province (rtpi~)

and

each

has its

own character

(B17.28).

But

unlike

Hesiod's

gods,

except

possibly

for

Chaos, Earth,

Tartarus,

and

Eros, Emped-

ocles'

roots are

all

equal

and

coeval

(B17.27).37

Moreover,

the

roots are

im-

mortal,

not

only

in

the

sense

of

being

indestructible:

they

are

also

unbegotten

(B7).

For

Hesiod

the

gods,

although

im-

mortal, i.e.,

not

subject

to death

(JOilvaro-),

are

begotten.

Even at the first Chaos came

to

be

(yIVE0-o)

and no more is said

about

what,

if

anything,

preceded

it. In

fact,

the

vast collection

of divine and semi-divine

names

in

the

Theogony

is

organized

in

descending

series and

gathered

into

suc-

cessive

generations,

to

the

point

that

the

time interval in this scheme is measured

by

the

genos,

and the

events

that

generally

take

place

are

always

genesis

and

tokos,

begetting

and

bearing. Yet, Empedocles'

roots,

as

well

as Love

and

Strife,

abide

eternally; they

have

no

origin,

and one

can

no

longer

speak

of the

birth and

death

of

things

in

the

cosmos, only

of

mixing

and

the

exchange

of

what

has

been

mixed

(B8).

But,

most

important,

what were

vaguely

described

as

the roots

or

springs

of

earth and

sea,

Tartarus

and

sky

in

Hesiod's

Theogony

become,

and

specifically

so,

earth,

air,

fire,

and water

in

Empedocles.

These are themselves the roots of all things,

and

as

is made

clear

in

B22.1-3

they

do

not

lose

their

separate

identities when

they

mingle

with each other

to form

the

world:

For all

of

these-the

shining

sun

and

earth

and

sky

and

sea-are all matched

in

full

accord

with

their

own

parts

which

are

scat-

tered far

from them in

mortal

things

(compare

the

7rI`TvKEV

of this

verse

with

7rEaaut

in

Theog.

728).

The

roots more-

over are

qualitatively

unalterable:

but

these things are ever the same, but run-

ning

through

each other

they

form

now

one

thing,

now

another,

and

they

are ever

continuously

the

same

(B

17.34-35).

De-

spite

their

homogeneity, however,

the

roots

apparently

can,

under the

influence

of

Love,

be

drawn

together

into

one.

In

fact,

there seems to be a

nearly

perfect

blend

of

the

roots

so that

then

are

discerned

neither

the

swift limbs

of

the

sun

nor

the

shaggy strength

of the earth nor the

sea

(B27.1-2).

In other

words,

under

the

reign

of

Love,

the roots are so

thoroughly

mixed or blended

as to be

indistinguishable,

3

Gen. et

corr.

333b20.

See

Guthrie, History, II,

p.

143,

n. 3.

37

For

further

discussion of this

point,

see

Jae-

ger,

Theology, p.

139.






156

JACKSON

P.

HERSHBELL

and

the

form of the cosmos

under

this

con-

dition

is

a

sphere

held

fast

in

the close

obscurity

of

Harmony

. .

.

rejoicing

in its

circular stillness

(B27.3-4). 3

Aristotle

reports

that

this

sphere

was

the

most

blessed

god

for

Empedocles,39

nd

in

B29,

the

poet

declares:

For no two

branches

spring

from

its

back,

there

/

are no

feet

nor

nimble

limbs,

no

reproductiveparts.

The

same two verses

are

found

in

B

134,

a

frag-

ment

usually

assigned

to

the

Purifications,

but with

the

variant

hairy parts.

Two

things

stand out

in the

foregoing

account of

Empedocles'

doctrine

of the

roots.

First,

the idea of

the

intermingling

of the

roots

under

Love's

influence so

as to

form a

unity

may

have

been

suggested by

Hesiod's

roots

of

earth and

sea

which,

according

to

one

interpretation,

gradually

disappear

into the underworld

and became

so intertwined

as to be

indistinguishable.

Secondly,

B29.1

echoes

Hesiod's

Theog.

150,

and

one

need

only

recall

Hesiod's

ter-

rible tale

of Uranos' castration

by

Cronos

(Theog. 159 f.) to see the point of Empedo-

cles'

rejection

of

parts

of

generation.

In

other

words,

B29

(cf. B134),

which

pre-

sumably

describes the

intermingling

of the

roots

under

Love,

is

also a

disguised

polemic

against

Hesiodic

(and

no doubt

Homeric)

conceptions

of

deity. Only

with

the anthro-

pomorphic

deities of

the

Greek

epic

in the

background

can

Empedocles'

desire

to

deny

human characteristics of

his

sphere

be

un-

derstood.

In

general,

Empedocles' roots,

the

origin

of the

concept

being

in Hesiod's

poems,

are

on

the

way

to

replacing

the

gods

of the

Theogony.

They

have some of the

characteristics

of

these

gods, but,

for the

most

part,

are

divested

of human charac-

teristics,

and the

way

is

prepared

for a

natural

description

of the

world.

Despite

the

possibility

that the

roots

had

an

inherent

power

of

movement,

Empedo-

cles'

account of

the

origin

and structure

of

the

cosmos would be

incomplete

were

it not

for

the

action

of

Love

and

Strife.

Like

the

roots, they

are

everlasting

(B

16)

and

they are somehowequal to them: baneful

Strife

apart

from

them

[the

roots]

equal

in

all

directionsand

love

among

them

equal

in

length

and

in

breadth

(B17.19-20).

Gen-

erally

speaking,

Love

has the function of

drawing

together

dissimilar

entities, e.g.,

water and

earth,

whereas

Strife is

responsi-

ble

for

uniting

like to

like, e.g.,

water

to

water.

What

is,

of

course,

immediately

apparent

in

this

scheme of

things

is

how

indispensable

Love

is

to the

world at

pres-

ent.

Under the

influence

of

Strife

the

four

roots

would

be

presumably

separated

into

four distinct

masses

(like

to

like),

and

organic

life

would not be

possible.40

Simi-

larly,

without

Eros

the

theogony

described

by

Hesiod

would

probably

not have been

possible,

and as

erotic,

sexual

imagery

played

an

important

part

in

Hesiod's

poem,

so too

in

that of

Empedocles.

Two

of his

roots are

male: Zeus

and

Aidoneus;

two

are female: Hera and Nestis (though this

may

be

accidental),

and the

power respon-

sible

for

the

mingling

of the roots

is called

in

the

fragments

Philotes, Aphrodite,

Har-

monia, Cypris,

names

suggestive

of

sexual

relations.41

Only

the

name

Eros is

not

found

in

the

extant

fragments, though

Plu-

tarch's

report

in

De

fac.

lun.

(926D)

sug-

gests

that

Empedocles

could

have used

this

word

as

well:

. . . for Affection arose or

Aphrodite

or

Eros,

as

Empedocles

says

and

Parmenidesand Hesiod.... In a passage

reminiscent

of

Hesiod's

description

of

Aph-

rodite's role

in

human affairs

(Theog.

204-

206),

Empedocles

declares:

She too

is

acknowledged

by

mortals

as

being

rooted

in

their limbs and

through

her

they

have

troughts

of

love and

accomplish

the works

of

union,

calling

her

Joy

by

name

and

38On

other

possible

translations

of

this

verse,

see

Guthrie, History,

II, p.

169.

39

Metaphysics

1000b3.

40

According

to Solmsen's

interpretation

of Em-

pedocles,

Strife

has

built

up

the

cosmos,

and Love

fashions living beings within it. See his valuable

study,

Love

and strife in

Empedocles'

cosmol-

ogy,

Phronesis 10

(1965)

109-148.

41

See

Solmsen,

JHI

24,

476.






HESIOD

AND

EMPEDOCLES

157

Aphrodite

(B17.21

f.)

Through

Love

the

roots are dear to

one

another

(B22.1);

they

come

together

in

Love

and

are desired

by

one another. But

despite

his use of

sexual

imagery,

Empedocles

does not

refer,

at

least

in the

remaining

fragments,

to

the

mixings

of

the roots as

births

or

beget-

tings.

The theme

of

birth

so

prevalent

in

the

Theogony

is

replaced

by

that of

mix-

ture.

In

Empedocles' poems

Strife

is

usually

called

Neikos,

not

Eris

as

in Hesiod

(eris

does

appear

in

the

fragments though

only

in

the plural, B124.2

and

B20.4, probably

in

the sense

of

quarrels

and

discords).

Strife

is

also not

explicitly

said to be

pres-

ent

in human

activities

(for

Hesiod,

Eris

like

Aphrodite

is

present

in

human

affairs)

though

there is reason to

think

that

Em-

pedocles

would have

considered

it

familiar

to

men in

their

dealings.

In

the

Theogony

Eris

was

responsible

for a considerable

progeny (226 f.),

and when

Empedocles

describes the

joyless

land in

B121,

one

cannot resist speculating that this too is a

catalogue

of

Strife's

offspring:

. . .

Mur-

der

and

Wrath

and

the

tribes

of other

Dooms,

and

Wasting

Disease and

Corrup-

tions

and the

Works

of

Dissolution

wander

over the meadow

of

Disaster

in

Darkness.

Empedocles

describes himself as a wan-

derer who trusted

in

hate

(B115.14);

men

are born

from conflicts

and

groanings

(B124).

But

from the

generally

negative

picture

of Strife

given

by Empedocles

it

would be wrong to conclude that Strife is

wholly

destructive.

As

Hesiod

distinguished

two

kinds

of

Strife,

one

of

them found

in

wholesome

competition,

so

for

Empedocles

our

present

world

could

not

exist

without

Strife.

The

Strife which

disrupts

the

sphere

of Love is somehow

responsible

for the

sep-

aration of the

large

masses of

the

roots-

earth, air, sea,

and heaven-and

without

these

as

backdrop,

the

organic

world

could

not exist.

In

short,

both

Love

and Strife

are

necessary

for the

present

world

if

there

is to be a cosmos at all.

As

with

his

roots,

so

Empedocles

has not

wholly

divested

Love

and Strife of

some

of

the

characteristics

of Hesiod's

gods.

Ulti-

mately

their

relationship

s

conceived

much

as one of

antagonism,

conflict,

and both

Plutarch and

Proclus

in

later

antiquity

con-

nected the

strife

of

Empedocles

with the

mythical

wars

of

the Titans and

Giants.42

Though

he comes

close

to

the

concept,

Em-

pedocles

does

not

speak

of forces of attrac-

tion and

repulsion;

and

his roots

are not

elements.

His

ontology

and

cosmology

in

its broad

outlines are

still dominated

by

the

language

and

thought

of

Hesiod.

III.

Other Themes Common

to

the

Thought

of Hesiod

and

Empedocles

Although

in

many

of

the

surviving frag-

ments

of his

poems Empedocles

s

concerned

with

building

the

cosmos,

his

purpose

is not

wholly

cosmological

or

ontological.

There

is also

a distinct ethical or

moral

emphasis,

especially

in

the

fragments

usually

assigned

to the

Purifications.

Even

in

some

of

the

fragmentsof On nature Empedocles'phra-

seology

is often ethical and

not

logical.43

For

example,

he

prays

to avoid

speaking

more

than is

sanctioned

or

right

(borx5),

not more than is true

(B3.7);

what

is

right

(Kaho'v)

can

be

said twice

(B25).

In

the

Purifications

there

is,

of

course,

an unmistakable

moral view of

things,

to-

gether

with various

injunctions, e.g.,

to

abstain

from

laurel leaves

(B140),

and

beans

(B

141),

and

to cease

from

slaugh-

ter

(B136).

Notably

in B135

Empedo-

cles declares:

But

that which

is

lawful

(voe?tpov)

s

spread continouously

through-

out

the

broad-ruling

air

and the

boundless

light

of

heaven. Aristotle

in

the

Rhetoric

(1373b)

interpreted

the

fragment

in

con-

junction

with

Sophocles'

Antigone

as

ex-

42

DK,

I,

p.

323.

The reference to

Plutarch is

De

fac.

lun.

(926D).

Proclus connects

the

Strife

of

Empedocles

with

the

war

of the

Giants,

In

Pla-

tonis

Parmenidem

comment.

ed.

Cousin

(Paris

1864), p. 849,

13-15.

43

This

was observed

by Millerd,

On

interpreta-

tion,

p.

25,

n. 1.






158

JACKSON

P.

HERSHBELL

pressing

a universal

law

of

nature.

Accord-

ing

to

him,

Empedocles

forbade

the

killing

of

living

creatures,

claiming

that it

is

not

just for some and unjust for others. C.

E. Millerd

commented

on

B135

that

the

thought

is

a

remarkable one

in

this

pe-

riod. 44

Yet this

passage

and

other

frag-

ments

of

Empedocles' poems,

e.g.,

B136

and

B128,

are

not

without

parallels

to

Hesiod's

thought,

especially

that of Works

and

days.

A

recurring

heme

of this

poem

is

the

necessity

of

just dealing

and

the avoid-

ance of

hybris.

And

although

Hesiod never

defines

justice,

but

only gives repeated

ex-

amples,

he is

concerned

to

prove

to

his

fellow

men that

justice

is

best.

Zeus

has

ordained

a

system

of

rewards

for

the

just

and

punishment

for the

wicked

in

this

world;

for

those

who

practice

savage

inso-

lence

and

evil

deeds

Zeus,

the

far-seeing

son

of

Cronos,

fixes

a

penalty

(v.

238);

Zeus

has

thrice ten thousand

immortal

spirits

on

the bounteous

earth to watch

over

mor-

tal men

(v.

252-253);

the

eye

of Zeus

seeing all things, understandingall things

S.

.

oes

not

fail to note

what

manner of

justice

our

city

keeps (v.

267-269).

The

commands

of Zeus are

clear:

listen

to

right

and

do not foster

violence

(v.

212).

Finally,

the son

of

Cronos

.

..

has or-

dained

this

law

(vdpov)

for

men,

that

fishes

and beasts

and

winged

birds

should

eat

one

another,

for

right

(

1Kq)

is

not in

them;

but

to

mankind

he

gave

right

which

proves

far

best

(275

f.).

To

recognize

Dike is

the

one thing that gives man his dignity and

sets

him

apart

from animals.

It is

regrettable

that

there

is

no

context

for

B

135

of

Empedocles'

poem,

but

perhaps

it

can

safely

be said

that if the

fragment

pertains

to

the

prohibition

of

killing

living

creatures,

it is

Empedocles'

recognition

of

what

Hesiod

had

expressed

years

before.

Men should

not

feast

on one

another

in

the

thoughtlessness

of their

minds

(B136)

nor should they

kill

other

creatures,

for

somehow

all life is

akin and sacred.

Indeed

there was

a

time

when

all

things

were tame

and

gentle

to

man,

both

beasts

and

birds,

and

the

fire

of

friendliness

is

kindled

(B 130). Hesiod's recognitionof a law im-

plicit

in

the

nature

of

things

is echoed and

perhaps

extended

so

that

it

embraces

all

living

things.

Yet

another

Hesiodic note

is

struck when

Empedocles

looks

back to a

golden age

(though

this

epithet,

so far as

is

known,

was

not

used

by him).

For

Hesiod

there

was

a time

during

the

reign

of Cronos

when

men,

except

for their

mortality,

lived

like

gods; pain

and

old

age

were

unknown,

and

death came

like

sleep;

earth bore fruit

abundantly

without

human labor

(W.

d.

110

f.).

The

age

of

golden men,

however,

was

supplanted by

subsequent

generations

of

silver,

brazen,

and

heroic

men,

culmi-

nating

with

a

race of iron.

This

present

age

is one

of

toil and

sorrow;

men

will dishonor

their

parents;

destroy

cities;

oaths

will

not

be

honored,

and

respect

will

fail.

Like

Hesiod,

Empedocles heightens

the

darkness

and misery of the present age by contrast

with

a former

time:

Nor

had

they

Ares as

a

god

nor

Cydoimos

nor

was Zeus

king

nor Cronos

nor

Poseidon,

but

Cypris

was

queen.

Her

they

propitiated

with

holy

gifts

and

painted

figures

of

animals

and

perfumes,

with sacrifice

of unmixed

myrrh

and

fragrant ncense,

casting

to

the

ground

liba-

tions

of

golden

yellow honeycombs,

and

the

altar was

not

wet with

the unmixedblood

of

bulls but

this

was

the

greatest

stain of

guilt

among

men after

tearing

out

the life

to

eat

the

limbs

as

food.

(B128)

There

are,

of

course,

differences between

the

two

poets'

conceptions

of

the

past

age.

For Hesiod

the

men

of the

golden age

lived

under the

reign

of

Cronos,

who

gained

his

rule

by violence,

castrating

Uranos

his

father

with a

jagged

sickle.

Empedocles,

for

his

part,

thinks

of

a

period

before

that

of

the

Olympian

gods,

when

blood sacrifices

were

not

made,

and

Aphrodite

prevailed

everywhere.

Indeed

implicit

in

his account

of this former

age

is a

rejection

of the

gods

of

Hesiod.

Possibly men, by

observing Empedocles'

4

Ibid., p.

94.






HESIOD

AND

EMPEDOCLES

159

prohibitions,

can

be

expected

to

draw closer

to

this

ideal

age.

But

the idea of

prohibit-

ing

certain

forms of

behavior was made

much of by Hesiod in the Worksand days.

Perses or

men

in

general

are cautioned

to

avoid the

anger

of the

gods (v.

706),

and

various

injunctions

follow,

e.g.,

do

not

get

a

reputation

for

being

extravagant

(v.

715),

take

nothing

to

eat from

vessels until

sacri-

fice

has

been

made over them

(v.

748

f.),

do

not

urinate

in

springs

(v.

758),

etc.

Indeed,

Empedocles' prohibition

to

abstain

from

laurel

leaves, though

possibly

con-

nected

with

B127,

which

suggests

that cer-

tain

daimones become

incarnated

in laurel

trees,

is

explained

by

the fact

that the

Muses

grant

to

Hesiod

a rod

of

sturdy

laurel

(Theog.

30),

the laurel

being

sacred

to

Apollo,

the

Muses' associate

(Theog.

94).

Mantic

properties

were

associated

with the

laurel,

and it

is

in

connection

with

the

poetic

craft that a

final

comparison

between

Hesiod

and

Empedocles

can

be

drawn.

The characterof Empedocleshas been a

subject

of

much

speculation

and

writing.

Charlatan,

medicine-man,

mystic

are some

of

the

judgments

made about him.

Espe-

cially

perplexing

is

his claim to

go

among

men

as an

immortal

god,

no

longer

mor-

tal

(B112.4);

crowds

desire

to

hear

his

prophecies

and words

of

healing.

Claims

like

these

seem

preposterous

n

our

present

literate,

scientific,

and

technological age.

But

the

key

to

understanding

Empedocles,

is given in the fragmentsof his poems when

they

are

read in

conjunction

with

Hesiod's

views

on

poetry

as

expressed

in

the The-

ogony,

75

f.

The

important

fragments

of

Empedocles'

poems

are

B

131

and

B146:

But if for

the

sake

of

creatures

of

a

day,

O

immortal

Muse,

it

has

pleased

thee

to

allow

my

work

to

go

through

thy

thoughts,

stand

beside

me

now

as

I

pray,

O Calliope,

while

I

show

forth

a

sound

doctrine about

the

gods.

(B131)

But at last they becomeprophetsand singers

and

physicians

and

leaders

among

mortal

men;

from

thence

they

rise

up

as

gods

chief

in

honors.

(B 146)

Compare

these

fragments

with

some

lines

in

Theog.

75

f.:

These thingsthen the Musessangwho dwell

on

Olympus

. .

Cleio

and

Euterpe,

Thaleia

...

and

Calliope,

who

surpasses

hem

all,

for

she

accompanies espectedprinces

....

all

the

people

ook

on him while

he decides

....

And

when

he

passes through

a

gathering, they

greet

him

as a

god

with

gracious reverence,

and he

is

distinguished

mong

the

assembled.

For it

is

through

the Muses

and

far-shooting

Apollo

that there

are

singers

and

harpists

on

earth;

but

princes

are

from

Zeus,

and

happy

is he whom the Muses

ove

....

For

though

a

man

have

sorrow and

grief

in his

newly-

troubledspirit and lives in dread becausehis

heart

is

distressed, et,

when

a

singer,

servant

of the

Muses,

chants

the

glorious

deeds

of

for-

mer men

and the blessed

gods

of

Olympus,

at

once

he

forgets

his heaviness

and does

not

even remember his

sorrows.

There

are distinct echoes

of this

passage

of

Hesiod's

Theogony

in the

fragments

of

Em-

pedocles

quoted previously:

for both

poets,

singers

or bards

(doitool

in

Hesiod, Theog.

95;

VvoirodXo

in

Empedocles

B146.1)

and

princes (/oatXk^Es

n

Hesiod)

or chiefs

(in

Empedocles

the word

is

ambiguous;

7rpdoL

could mean

fighters

in the

front

ranks )

have

an

important

function.

For

Hesiod

princes

are

greeted

with

respect

and

treated

like

gods;

the bard has

a

healing

influence

on his

audience.45

Calliope

appears,

and

though

she is the

queen

of

epic

poetry,

she

is

first

identified

by

Hesiod;

Van Gro-

ningen

has seen

her as

a

vestige

of

Hesiodic

influence

on

Empedocles.46

There

is

little

doubt that for both poets the bard has an

important

place

in

society,

and

in

both

there

is an

ambiguity

in

their

treatment.

In Hesiod

the

prince

is

regarded

as if

he

45B146

also

shows

great

similarity

to

Od.

17.382-385:

But

whoever

summons a

stranger,

having

gone

to him

himself,

unless

it

be

one of

those who

are

masters

of

public

crafts,

a

prophet,

or a healer of

ills,

or a

builder,

or

indeed

a

divine

minstrel,

who

gives

delight

with his

song?

In

this

passage

the

bard is

again given

a

position

of

prominence

in his

society.

4G

B. A.

Van

Groningen,

La

composition

litte'-

raire

archaique grecque

(Amsterdam

1958), p.

218,

n. 2.






160

JACKSON

P.

HERSHBELL

were

a kind

of

poet,

though

the social func-

tions are

distinguishable.

E. A. Havelock

in

discussing

the

passage

has

observed:

The prince wields political power; he is

therefore

Zeus'

child. The

minstrel

wields

power

over

words;

he

therefore is the

child

of

Apollo

and the Muses. But the two

kinds

of

power

are somehow

coeval,

linked

together.

In

practical

terms a

prince

might

formulate

his own edicts and

if

he

could

and

did,

the

greater

might

be

his influence.

More

likely

the

poet

did

it

for

him.

Hence,

earlier

in

this

passage,

and

with the same

bifocal

vision,

Hesiod had

spoken

of

the

'Muse'

consorting

with

the

prince:

this

symbolizes

the

minstrel

standing by

his

side

attendant

to his

words

which he

is

to re-

frame

in

epe

for

the

audience

.

...

47

A

full context

for the

fragments

of

Empedo-

cles

is

lacking,

but

it

is difficult

to

believe

that

his

linking

together

of

healer, bard,

prophet,

and leader is

wholly

accidental.

In

his

own

life he was at least bard and

leader

if

the tradition can

be

trusted

that

he was active in the politics of Akragas.

And

it

would

not

be

amiss to

view

his

func-

tion

of

healer

in

connection

with

his

poetic

gift.

The

passage

from Hesiod

suggests

that the

bard

had

a

therapeutic effect,

at

least on

his

hearer's

psyche.

Similarly

in

other cultures

the

bard

is

considered

o

have

healing influence.48

One

need

only

recall

that

Apollo

himself

was the associate

of

the

Muses

and

god

of

healing (he

may

be

the

god

without

human

characteristics,

the

god of thoughtmentionedin B134; at least

he

is

according

to the

report

of

Ammonius).

Whether the

same or similar

cultural con-

ditions

prevailed

in

both

the

time

of

Hesiod

and that of Empedoclesis difficult to say.

There

is reason

to

think,

however,

that

no

vast strides had

been

made

in

literacy,

and

the

common

man at

least

was

dependent

on

those

who

could memorize the

formulaic

traditions

of the

past.

Ancient Greece

was

predominantly

an oral

culture and

within

this

Empedocles

must

not be

seen

as

a

charlatan,

but as

the

aoidos,

the

singer

of

tales. 49

He

differs,

of

course,

from

many

of

those

before

him,

including

Hesiod. His

mythos,

the content of his

poems,

is

no

longer

the

tales

of

glorious

deeds

of men

and

gods.

On the

contrary,

he will tell

how

worlds come

to

be and

how

they

end;

how

one can

gain

knowledge

of and control

over

the

environment;

and

in

the

eyes

of

his

contemporaries,

he

stood,

like

other

bards,

as

a

mediator

between

the world

of

sense

and

the

world

of

spirit.

IV. Conclusion

This

study

of

Hesiod and

Empedocles

has

been

hampered,

as

any study

of

the lat-

ter must

be,

by

the lack of

the

complete

poems

of

Empedocles.

It

is

tempting

to

speculate,

for

example,

that

Empedocles

also recounted

a

theogony

like

Hesiod

in

the

lost

sections of his

poems.

In

intro-

ducing

B128

Porphyry (De

abst.

II

20,

borrowed

from

Theophrastus'

De

pietate)

says the fragment occurs when he (Em-

pedocles)

writes

concerning

the

generation

of

the

gods

(O0oyovia)

and on

sacrifices.

But

all one reads

in

the

fragment

is

that

Cypris

is a

very

old

goddess,

existing

be-

fore

Cronos,

Zeus, Poseidon,

Ares,

and

Cydoimos.

In

any

case,

Porphyry's

remark

47

E. A.

Havelock,

Preface

to Plato

(Cambridge,

Mass.

1963),

p.

110.

48

Compare

the

following passage

in the Ma-

habharatawith B111 of

Empedocles'

poem

(con-

sidered

spurious

by

Van

Groningen,

ee

footnote

11 of

this

study):

And

those

who will recite

his

great

adventure

f

Nala,

and those

who will hear t

attentively,

misfortune

shall not visit them. . . . He shall be

free from

sickness ..

The passage s quotedin A. B. Lord, Homerand

other

poetry

n

A

companion

o

Homer,

ed. A.

J.

B.

Wace

and F. H.

Stubbings New

York

1963),

p.

199-200.

49

On the

importance

and

function of

the bard

in

oral

culture,

see

ibid.,

p. 181-184,

197

f.

Have-

lock's

book, Preface,

is

a

well-argued attempt

to

show that Greece, at least until the time of Plato,

was

predominantly

an

oral

culture and

that

Plato

was

trying

to

demolish

the

hold

of the

epic

on the

intellect

of

his

countrymen.






HESIOD AND EMPEDOCLES

161

seems

not

to be

supported

by

the text.

But

whether

Empedocles

wrote

a

theogony

or

not,

there

is

little doubt

that he

was

influ-

enced in other respects by Hesiod. Emped-

ocles'

originality

and

importance,

especially

in

the

development

of the later doctrine

of

the four

elements,

has not been denied. Nor

has

it

been

maintained

that he

took this or

other

theories

wholesale

from Hesiod.

No

doubt

the

origins

of

the

four

elements

can

be found

in

the

latter's

poems.50

What

Empedocles

did was to

borrow

the

language

of

Hesiod,

e.g.,

that

of

roots,

as well as

some

conceptions

of

Hesiod, notably

Love

and

Strife, reinterpret

and

develop

them

to

a

point

where a

reasonably

coherent

and

complete

picture

of

the universe

could

be

drawn,

a

picture

largely

divested

of the

theological

apparatus

of

the

epic

tradition.

In

this

respect,

Empedocles

went

vastly

beyond

Hesiod.

Divinity

is

not

to be found

in

the

anthropomorphic

gods

of the

past,

but

in

the

roots,

and

the

cosmic

sphere,

and

in

the

action

of

Love and

Hate.

Beginning

with these a universeof myriadthings, even

as minute as the

eye

and

ear,

can

be de-

scribed

and

explained.

The

epic

of Greek

tradition is

to

be

replaced by

a

new

epic,

one

on

a

vaster and

grander

scale even

than

the sack

of

Troy

or

the birth of

the

gods.

But

in

Empedocles'

undertaking

lay

the

seeds of dissolution. The language and

thought

of

epic poetry,

imagistic

and

con-

crete,

cannot

compete

with the

exactness

and

precision

of

a

quasi-scientific prose.

Empedocles'

epic,

like

those

of Homer and

Hesiod,

was

eventually

to

be

supplanted

by

the

dialogue

of

Plato

and

the treatise

of

Aristotle.51

Guthrie sees

B17.14

( .

..

for

learning

will

increase

your

understanding )

as

per-

haps

aimed

at Heraclitus

B40.52

But

it

is

in

this

fragment

that

Hesiod,

among

others,

is attacked

by

Heraclitus:

Much

learning

does

not teach

one

to

have

intelligence;

for it

would have

taught

Hesiod and

Pythagoras,

Xenophanes

and

Hecataeus.

Empedocles

was

no

doubt

critical of

Hesiod,

especially

of

the

latter's

views of

the

gods,

and

would

have

agreed

with

Xenophanes'

polemic; but it is tempting to see him also

as

a defender of Hesiod.

JACKSON

P.

HERSHBELL

The

University of

North

Dakota

5o

For

an

interesting

discussion

of the

origins

of

the

doctrine of the four

elements and Hesiod's

role

in

the

development,

see C. H.

Kahn,

Anaximander

and

the

origins

of

Greek

cosmology

(New

York

1960), p.

134

f.

51

Empedocles

was

the

last

important

Greek

thinker to

use verse as

a

medium

for

his

views

on

reality.

52

Guthrie,

History,

II,

p.

154,

note on

v.

14.

Hesiod and Empedocles

Documents