Acknowledgements
Theconceptionandrealizationofthisbookoweagreatdealtotherich corpusofpublishedworksonEmpedoclesand,moregenerally,onearly Greekphilosophy,aswellastothestimulatingquestions,inspiringideas andinsightfulsuggestionsofalargenumberofcolleagues,fellow researchers,conferenceparticipants,friendsandacquaintances,Classics enthusiastsoranypersoninterestedinmywork.ToallofthemIamdeeply andsincerelygrateful.SpecialthanksgotoFrancoFerrari,RiccardoDi Donato,AlbertoBernabé,DavidSedley,Jean-ClaudePicot,thetwo anonymousreadersofthisbookandMelindaJohnstonfortheirinvaluable supportinreading,discussing,commentingonandeditingsomeorallof thechaptersofthisbookduringthevariousdraftingstages.Iamalsovery gratefultoMichaelSharpandCambridgeUniversityPressfortheirvaluableassistanceandadviceduringthepublicationprocess.
Thecompletionofthisprojecthasbeenmadepossiblethankstothe fundsmadeavailablebytheDeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft(DFG)as partoftheproject EarlyConceptsofHumansandNature:Universal, Specific,Interchanged (RTG 1876)aswellasthankstothedigitalresources ofHarvard’sCenterforHellenicStudiesinWashington,DC,fromwhich Icouldbenefit firstasaFellowin 2017–2018 andthenasanAssociatein earlyGreekphilosophyin 2018–2020
Thisbookisdedicatedtomyhusband,Moritz,forhisconstantsupport, encouragementandlovethroughouteverystageofthisproject.
Introduction
Inthe fifthcenturyBCE,1 theearlyGreekthinkerEmpedoclesofAcragas, present-dayAgrigentointhesouthernregionofSicily,authoredtwo poemsinhexametricalverses: Katharmoi, ‘Purifications’,intwobooks, and PeriPhyseos or Physika, ‘OnNature’,inthreebooks.2 Inthese,heput forwardaphilosophicalprojectaimingatacomprehensiveexplanationof thecosmos3 anditslivingbeings.Hisextantversesdealwiththedynamic ofthefourelements – fire,ether(orair),4 waterandearth – whichare describedas ‘therootsofallthings’ , 5 sincetheyformallthatexistsby mixturesandseparations.Theirworkingshapesacosmiccycleinwhich theelements,undertheinfluenceofthetwooppositepowersofLove andStrife,areeternallyandregularlybroughttogetherintoonething alone(thedivineandblissfulformoftheSphairos)atthehandsof unifyingLove(Greek, Φιλότης),andareseparatedagainintomanythings
1 AccordingtothemostrecentstudyaboutthechronologyofearlyGreekphilosophersby Thibodeau (2019: 177–87),Empedocleswasbornin 496 BCEanddiedin 436 BCE. Throughoutthisbook,thefragmentsofEmpedoclesandotherearlyGreekphilosopherswillbe quotedfollowingtheeditionby Diels-Kranz(1951),withreferencetothemorerecenteditionby Laks-Most(2016) addedinparentheses.FortheversesoftheStrasbourgpapyrustheeditionusedis Laks-Most(2016).TranslationsfromGreekandLatinsourcesaremyown,butIregularlyconsulted existingtranslations.Inparticular,translationsofEmpedocles’ fragmentsfollow Wright(1995), Inwood(2001) and Laks-Most(2016).ForotherearlythinkersIalsousedthetranslationsby McKirahan(2010) and Graham(2010)
2 ThemostimportantsourcesforEmpedocles’ twoworksareDiog.Laert. 8 54, 61–2 and 77 (=Lobon Frag. 12 Garulli).In 8.54 and 8.61–62 Diogenesassociatesthetitles OnNature and Purifications with differentEmpedocleanverses;specifically,heattributesB 1 (=EMPD 41 Laks-Most)tothepoemon naturalphilosophyandB 112 (=EMPD 4 Laks-Most)tothe Katharmoi.In 8 77 Diogenesreports that,accordingtothelistofEmpedocles’ workscompiledbyLobonofArgos, OnNature and Purifications amountto fivethousandlinesinall.Asforhowmanybookseachofthetwopoems comprises,see Primavesi(2006b).AgainstareconstructionofEmpedoclesastheauthoroftwo poems,seebelow.
3 Whilewiththeword ‘Cosmos’ IshallrefertothecosmicphaseopposedtotheSphairos(see Chapter 7 1 4),Iwilluse ‘ cosmos ’ (withoutcapitalization)throughoutassynonymousof ‘world’
4 Asthelistsofthenamesoftherootsby Wright(1995: 23)show,airandetherrefertothesame elementofair.As O’Brien(1969: 292)argues,AristotletreatsEmpedocles’ airandetherasequivalent whenhedescribesthesubjectofB 53 (=EMPD 105 Laks-Most)inoneplaceasether(Degen.et.corr. 334a 1–5)andinanotherplaceasair(Phys. 196a 20–3).
5 Theyaredefinedas τῶνπάντων ῥιζώματα inB 6 1 (=EMPD 57 1 Laks-Most). 1
bythedividingforceofStrife(Greek, Νεῖκος).6 However,Empedoclesis alsothepoetwhoteachesamorereligiousdoctrineofrebirthandpurifications,urgesabstinencefromsexualintercourseaswellasfromsomekinds offoodanddepictshimselfasagod,beingreborninhumanformand exiledtoourworld.
Althoughwecanrelyonarelativelylargenumberoffragments,7 the detailsofEmpedocles’ thought,especiallyconcerningtherelationship amonghisdifferentandapparentlycontradictoryphilosophicalinterests, remaincontroversial.AsC.Kahnputit: ‘Empedoclesthephilosopherof natureandEmpedoclestheprophetoftransmigrationareeachintelligible whentakenseparately.Togethertheyseemtocomposeasplitpersonality whosetwosectionsarenotunitedbyanyessentiallink’ . 8 Thus,the fundamentalquestionbehindthestudyofEmpedoclesisstillthatposed byE.Zellerattheendofthenineteenthcentury:9 ifEmpedocles’ religious teachings ‘standinnovisibleconnectionwiththescientificprinciples’ of hisphysics,andthedoctrineofrebirthandpurificationappearstobe ‘imperfectlyappendedtohisphilosophicalscheme’ , 10 how,then,canwe explainwhatseemstobeadoctrinalantinomyinoneandthesameauthor?
Thisbooktakesonthechallengeofmakingsenseofthiscontroversial materialbyreconstructingatextualbaseuponwhichEmpedocles’ thought canbere-evaluatedintermsofaphilosophicalsystemaspiringtodoctrinal unity.TheargumentrunningthroughoutthebookisthatinEmpedocles’ physicalsystem,religiousandphilosophicalinterests11 interrelatewithand illuminateeachother.Indeed,thedoctrineofrebirthisapositiveand centraldoctrineofEmpedocles’ physics.Methodologically,thisstudyis basedontheassumptionthatEmpedocles’ thoughtmadesensewith respecttohistimeand,alsoinvirtueofitseschatologicalvalue,itinfluencedGreekphilosophyandthought.Adoptingthisperspective,thisbook
6 Whereas Φιλότης and Νεῖκος arethemostcommonGreeknamestocallthepowersofLoveand StrifeinEmpedocles,itisworthnotingthat,aswewillseeinthecourseofthisbook,theyarealso referredtobyothernames.
7 IntheDiels-KranzeditionofPresocraticthinkers, 154 B-fragments(i.e.,Empedocles’ ownwordsin contrasttotheA-fragments,whichare Berichte [reports],fromsecondarysources)areattributedto him.Tothem,theexceptional findingsoftheStrasbourgpapyrusaddedoverseventynewverses.
8 Kahn(1960: 3). 9 Seealso Primavesi(2013: 667).
10 Zeller(1920: 1001, 1004–16).Seealso Primavesi(2013: 667).
11 By ‘religiousinterests’ (oreven ‘religion’ moregenerally)IrefertoEmpedocles’ concernwithmatters ofanotherworldlynatureandwhatSocrateswouldhavecalled ‘thecareofone’ssoul’ andfor behaviourconsistentwiththat.By ‘philosophicalinterests’,Imeaninterestsintheprinciplesofthe physicalworldand,moregenerally,inthenatureandorderofthings;thatis,thekindofresearch topicsthatAristotleattributedtothe physiologoi andthatweusuallyconsidertobepropertoearly Greekphilosophy.
willshowthewaysinwhichEmpedocles’ physicsaccommodates,on atextualandcontextualbasis,thedetailsofhisdoctrineofrebirth,thus demonstratingthecentralityofthisdoctrinetohisphysicalsystem.Indeed, itwillevengobeyondshowingaccommodation,pointingoutthatsome pivotalaspectsofEmpedocles’ physicsseemtobepremisedandeven structuredonhisconceptofrebirth.
Inpresentingthisargument,Ialsoaimtoshednewlightonlongstandingquestionsregardingtherelationshipbetweenthedifferentand apparentlyconflictingareasofEmpedocles’ thought.Iwillthusshowthat in OnNature Empedoclesimplementedaphilosophicalprojectwiththe mainaimofindicatingthewaythroughwhichhumanbeingscanescape rebirth,transcendtheirmortalnatureandbecomegods.Tothisend,Iwill correctpreviousresearchbyreconstructingvarioustopicsandversesthat scholarshaveusuallyattributedtothe Purifications within OnNature, challengingtherebythestandardapportionmentofextantfragments betweenthetwopoems.Indoingso,itwillbeshownthatconcerns abouttheplaceandfateofhumanbeingsinthisworld,claimsfor individualexistencebeyondthebody,moralagencyandpersonalsurvival throughmanydeathsanddifferentlives,aswellaspursuitoftrueknowledgeandsolicitationsforapurewayoflifearenotmerelyaddedto Empedocles’ interestsinnaturalphilosophy,butareinsteadintegralto hisphysicalsystem.
BeyondofferinganewreadingofEmpedocles’ thought,thisbookalso bearsrelevancetoearlyGreekphilosophyingeneral.AsJ.Warrenclaims, ‘Empedoclesis ... anexcellentcaseinwhichwehavetothinkcarefully aboutwhatweassumetobethenatureofearlyGreekphilosophy.’12 My mainstandpointinthisbookisthatEmpedoclesisprimarilyconcerned withhumanbeings’ pragmaticapproachtotheirlifeinthisworldandthus focuseshisenquiryintothenatureofthingsaroundquestionssuchas: whatisourplaceintheworld?Whatshouldwedowithourlivesandhow shouldwefacetheprospectofdeath?Accordingly,thisbookmaythen offeraninterpretativekeytoapproachandpossiblyre-evaluateotherpreSocratics – includingbutnotlimitedtoHeraclitus,Parmenidesandthe Derveniauthor – whodisplaysimilarintereststoEmpedocles.Itmayalso helpustorethinkearlyGreekphilosophyprimarilyasa philosophyof humans ratherthanofnature.13
12 Warren(2007: 137).
13 Sinceantiquity,earlyGreekphilosophyhasbeendescribedasaphilosophyofnature(orPresocratic naturalism)incontrasttoaphilosophyofhumans,initiatedbySocrates(orSocratichumanism).On this,see Laks(2018: 1–18).
ThechoicetodevoteanentiremonographtoEmpedoclesisdictated notonlybythefactthat,asIhavejustnoted,hecanbeconsideredan exemplarycaseforareassessmentofearlyGreekphilosophy;itisalso motivatedbytheas-yetunresolvedquestionsraisedbyhisphilosophy, whichhavedrawntheinterestofscholarsforcenturies.Anindicationof therelevancehehasinthehistoryofGreekphilosophyisgiven, first,bythe largestnumber,amongpre-SocraticthinkersbesidesDemocritus,of ancientquotationsandthusofsurvivingfragmentsthathavecomedown tous.Additionally,theextantfragmentsofhisworkdonotmerelycome fromexcerptsofcitationsoflaterauthors;rather,aconsiderableportionof hisversesaretransmitteddirectlyinapapyrusdatedbetweenthe first andsecondcenturyCE,14 whichisevidenceofthecirculationofhispoem –hence,oftheinterestitstillaroused – evencenturiesafterhisdeath.15
Second,Empedocles’ philosophymusthavealreadygainedgreatpopularityshortlyafterhisdeathgiventheearliestmentionofhisnameisby hisnear-contemporary,theHippocraticauthorof AncientMedicine (fifth centuryBCE).16 Somegenerationslater,moreover,Plato(428–347 BCE) regularlyreferstoEmpedoclesbyname;composes,inhis Symposium, aparodyofEmpedocles’ generationofhumanbeings(putinthemouth ofthecomicpoetAristophanes)17 and,inhis Timaeus,constructshis cosmologicalandbiologicaltheoriesthroughseveralreminiscencesof Empedocleantheories.18 ThisiswithoutevenmentioningthePlatonic
14 Martin-Primavesi(1999: 14–15).
15 AsIamabouttocompletethe finalmanuscriptofthisbook,newsreachesmeofapapyrus finding fromCairoawaitingpublication,containingthirtynewversesbyEmpedocles:yetanotherproofof theinterestarousedbythisphilosopher,whoseworkcontinuedtobecopiedevencenturiesafterhis death.
16 SeeHippocrates Vet.med. 20.
17 Specifically,Aristophanesaccountsforproto-humansasself-sufficientspheresthatwerethencut intotwo,amaleandafemalebeing,whocometogetherthankstotheinfluenceoferoticLove (Symp 189d 5–191d 5).InthisaccountPlatoisreminiscentofEmpedocles’ hypothesisoftheoriginof menandwomenastheresultoftheseparationofproto-humanandasexualwhole-naturedbeings(B 62 [=EMPD 157 Laks-Most]);see O’Brien(2002).
18 Torecalljusttwo,thedepictionofthecosmosinthe Timaeus echoesthedescriptionoftheSphairos ofEmpedocles:botharespherical,symmetrical,unique,innoneedofhumanlimbsandhappy.See Plat. Tim 34bandEmpedoclesB 27 (=EMPD 89 Laks-Most),B 28 (=EMPD 90 Laks-Most)and B 29 (=EMPD 92 Laks-Most).OnEmpedocles’ Sphairos,seemyinvestigationin Chapter 4.3. Second,thetheoryofthecompositionofbodilytissuesinthe Timaeus displaysundeniable Empedocleaninfluences.Infact,bothTimaeusandEmpedoclespostulatethattissuessuchas marrow,boneand fleshareproportionedmixturesofthefourelements.Mostremarkably,the compositionofbloodinEmpedocles,whichisthetissuethroughwhichwethinkandknow,is comparabletothatofmarrowforTimaeus(in 73b–c),whichisthe firstandbasictissueandis acompositionofmostharmoniouslymixedelements.Plato’sEmpedocleanreminiscencesinthe Timaeus havebeenwellexamined,see Bignone(1916: Appendice IV).Accordingto Taylor(1928: 11), the Timaeus is ‘adeliberateattempttoamalgamatePythagoreanreligionandmathematicswith
mythsontheultramundanejourneysofsouls,whichareverylikelyreminiscentofEmpedocles’ storyoftheguiltygodsanddoctrineofrebirth.19
Similarly,EmpedoclesalsoexcitedgreatinterestwithinthePeripatetic school.Aristotle(384–322 BCE)mentionsnootherphilosopherwithgreater frequency,exceptPlato.WhilehiscriticismincludesseveralEmpedoclean theories,rangingfromhisconceptionoftheelementsandtheirgeneration tohistheoryofmotion,hisdebttoEmpedocles,andinparticulartohis biologicaltheories,isundeniable.Amongthe firstPeripatetics,moreover, Theophrastus(ca. 369–ca. 285 BCE)dedicatesalongsectionof Onthe Senses tochallengingthetheoriesofEmpedoclesonsenseorgans,perception andknowledgeacquisitionand,ifwearetojudgefromwhatispreservedof thiswork,withtheexceptionofhistreatmentofDemocritus,thesection dedicatedtoEmpedoclesisTheophrastus’ longestandmostcomprehensive discussionofhispredecessors.
WhileStoicsandEpicureanswerealsoin fl uencedbyEmpedocles,20 engagementwithhisphilosophycontinuedincommentarieswritten onPlato ’ sdialoguesandAristotle’ sworksaswellasbytheearly Christiansintolateantiquity.Inparticular,twoofthemostimportant sourcesforEmpedocles ’ fragmentsshouldbementioned.First,Plutarch (ca. 45 – ca. 125 CE)iscreditedwithamajorworkonEmpedoclesinten books,whichisastrongindication,togetherwithhisnumerous Empedocleanquotations,thatEmpedocles ’ poemswereheldin highesteembyhim. 21 Second,theNeoplatonistandAristoteliancommentatorSimplicius(ca. 480 – ca. 560 CE)almostcertainlyhadaccessto alargepart,probablyall,ofEmpedocles ’ physicalpoem.Thisisshown
Empedocleanbiology’ . Cornford(1937),too,sawEmpedocleaninfluencesinseveralpassagesofthe Timaeus;e.g.,at 32c.Moreover, Solmsen(1950:esp. 446–58)isimportantforanassessmentof Empedocles’ influenceonTimaeus’ viewsontissuesofthehumanbody.Seealso Guthrie(1965: 217) for ‘Timaeus ow[ing]anobviousdebttoEmpedocles’.Similarly, O’Brien(1969: 22–23, 144–45).For anopposingattempttodiminishtheweightandvalueofEmpedocles’ influenceonPlato’ s Timaeus, see Hershbell(1974). Contra,seetherecentarticleby Hladký(2015: 73–82).
19 Aswewillseeespeciallyin Chapter 3.3.1. 20 Ontheonehand,Hermarchus(thirdcenturyBCE),discipleofEpicurusandhissuccessorashead oftheEpicureanschool,issaidtohavewrittenatreatise AgainstEmpedocles intwenty-twobooks (see Obbink[1988]),whileitisrenownedthattheLatinpoetLucretius(firstcenturyBCE)praised Empedocles’ poeticalabilitiesandhis DeRerumNatura wasalsoreminiscentofseveralof Empedocles’ philosophicaltheories(Furley[1970], Sedley[1989, 1998, 2003], Garani[2007] and, morerecently, Nethercut[2017]).Ontheotherhand,Galen, Plac Hipp.Plat. 3 3 25 and 3 5 22 tells usthattheStoicChrysippus(ca. 281–ca. 208 BCE)citedandinterpretedpassagesofEmpedocles’ poem,whereasCicero, AdQuest 2 9 3 comparesLucretius’ DeRerumNatura withan Empedoclea composedbyacertainSallustius – possiblyatranslationorinterpretationofEmpedocles’ work:see Sedley(1989: 269).
21 Plutarch’sworkonEmpedoclesislistedintheso-calledLamprias Catalogue ofPlutarch’swritings, number 43.ItisalsomentionedbyHipp. Ref 5 20 6
bytheextentofSimplicius ’ Empedocleanquotations,whichaccountfor nearly 8 percentofthewholepoemandincludeover 150 versesorpart verses,oftenrepeatingthem. 22 Additionally,Simplicius ’ familiaritywith Empedocles ’ workisalsoshownbythefactthatheoftencitesverses togetherwithaprecisereferencetothepartsandbooksof OnNature fromwhichtheyarederived. 23 Thisisevidencethatinlateantiquity Empedoclescontinuedtoarouseinterestamongphilosophers,whostill caredtocopyandcitehiswork.
Lastly,Empedocles’ greatfascinationendureseveninthemodernera. Forinstance,theGermanpoetFriedrichHölderlin(1770–1843)wrotean unfinishedtragedyconcerningthelegendarydeathofEmpedocles,24 while thecrucialrolethatPresocraticthought,andthatofEmpedoclesin particular,playedinthephilosophyofFriedrichNietzsche(1844–1900) iswellrecognizedandstudied.25 Allofthisservestodisplaythesheerappeal andpopularitythechallengingphilosophyofEmpedoclesandhiscurious personalityhavealwaysandconsistentlywielded.Inshort,thenumberof openquestionshisworkstillraises,hisstatusasathinkerwhoprompts reassessmentofwhatwemeaninthe firstplaceby ‘earlyGreekphilosophy’ andhisimportantlegacyforlaterthinkersallensurethathisthoughtstill wieldsanenduringclaimonourattentiontoday.
Thestartingpointofthepresentstudyisacriticalapproachtowards thetraditionalcriteriaaccordingtowhichscholarshaveattributed Empedocles’ fragmentsto OnNature andthe Purifications.Thesecriteria canbetracedbacktothenineteenthcenturywiththeworkofH.Stein, whosedivisionofEmpedocleanfragmentsbetween OnNature andthe Purifications wasessentiallytakenupbyH.Diels firstinhis 1901 Poetarum PhilosophorumFragmenta andthenin DieFragmentederVorsokratiker in 1903.Thelatterwork,whichsoonbecamethereferenceeditionforearly Greekphilosophers,endedupdefiningastandardstrategyindealing withEmpedocles’ allegeddoctrinalantinomy.Asonlyafewofthe extentfragmentsareexplicitlyassignedbyoursourcestoeitherpoem,26 Dielsconsideredversesrelatedtothestoryoftheguiltygods,individual
22 Mostnotably,B 17.7–8 (=EMPD 73.240–1)arerepeatedasmanyashalfadozentimes:see O’Brien (1969: 150).
23 Forinstance,weowetohimthepreciousevidence,amongvariousotherindications,thatB 17 (=EMPD 73 233–66 Laks-Most)comesfromthe firstbookofthephysicalpoem:see Phys 157, 25 Diels.
24 ToddesEmpedokles.See Primavesi(2014) 25 See Most(2005) and Rapp(2011)
26 DK 31 B 1 (=EMPD 41 Laks-Most),B 8 (=EMPD 53 Laks-Most),B 17 (=EMPD 73.233–66 LaksMost),B 34 (=EMPD 71 Laks-Most),B 62 (=EMPD 157 Laks-Most),B 96 (=EMPD 192 LaksMost),B 103 (=EMPD 242 Laks-Most)andB 134 (=EMPD 93 Laks-Most)areexplicitlyconnected
rebirthandpurificatoryrulesasdistinctfromversesofamorephysical character,connectedtothefourelementsandthetwoforcesofLoveand Strife,thecosmiccycle,theoriginanddevelopmentofourworld,zoogony, anthropogony,biologyandepistemology.Accordingtothisstandard, DielsreconstructedEmpedocles’ thoughtintotwoprofoundlydifferent poems:the Purifications weremadeareligiouscomposition,whereas On Nature becameaworkdealingwithtopicsthatDielsconsideredappropriateto fifth-centurynaturalphilosophy.Theapparentlycontradictory natureofEmpedocles’ poemsthatresultedfromthisreconstructionwas thenexplainedawaybyhis ‘spiritualdevelopment’ . 27 AccordingtoDiels, Empedoclesdevotedhisyouthtophysicalresearchandwriting OnNature, butitwasonlylater,whenoppressedbythepainsofoldageandthefurther misfortuneofexile,28 thathe finallyturnedtoreligiousconsolationand wrotehis Purifications. 29 Thesubjectivecharacterofthishypothesis,which nonethelessknewaconsiderablefollowing,isdisplayedbythefactthatthe directionofEmpedocles’ spiritualdevelopmentcouldbereversedatwill andsoafewscholarsarguedthathewrotehis Katharmoi whenhewas a ‘youngprophet’,andturnedtophysicaltopicswhenhebecameoldand disillusioned.30
The firstsubstantialcriticismagainsttheassumptionofEmpedocles’ doctrinalconflictcamefromKahninhisfoundationalstudyof 1960.By emphasizingthattheantinomybetweenEmpedocleanreligiousandphysicalinterestscannotberesolvedbyassumingadifferenceindateand outlookbetweenthetwopoems,Kahnobservedthatthereligiouspoem presupposesEmpedocles’ physics.Forinstance,Empedoclesemploysthe scenarioofthefourelementsasplacesintheworldwheretheguiltygods arecompelledtowander(B 115 [=EMPD 10 Laks-Most]).Moreover,he depictsthepowersofLoveandStrifeupontheguiltygodsasfunctioning inthesamewayastheyworkupontheelementswithinthephysical fragments.Aboveall,KahnhighlightedthatEmpedocles’ conceptionof theprincipleofLoveasacomplexreality, ‘atoncephysicalandspiritual’,is
with OnNature,whereasonlyB 112 (=EMPD 4 Laks-Most)andF 26 Mansfeld-Primavesi(=EMP D 37 Laks-Most)arequotedascomingfromthe Purifications.
27 Thedefinitionisby Kahn(1960: 5).
28 ThereisnosureevidencethatEmpedocleswasexiled.However,thismaybeimpliedfromthe referencetohis κάθοδος inDiog.Laert. 8 67 andfromthefactthatinB 112 (=EMPD 4 Laks-Most) Empedoclesdescribeshimselfasonewhotravelsfromcitytocity,whereasinB 115: 13–14 (=EMP D 10 13–14 Laks-Most)hedescribeshimselfasanexilefromthegods.
29 Diels(1898: 406).Seealso Wilamowitz(1929: 655–6).
30 Accordingto Bidez(1894: 159–74)and Kranz(1935: 111–9).Onthesubjectivenatureofthese interpretationssee Primavesi(2013: 669).
substantiallyunchangedbetweenthe Purifications and OnNature andthis makesthetwopoemsfundamentallycompatiblewitheachother.31
Additionally,Kahnshowedthatthephysicalpoemisalsoaprofoundly religiouswork.Infact,theformof OnNature suggeststhespiritof mysteriousrevelationentrustedtohisdisciplePausanias,towhomthe physicalpoemisdedicatedandwhoisurgedtokeepit ‘muteinhisheart’ . 32 Thisinvitesthereadingofa ‘preliminaryinitiation,whichreservesthe final disclosureforalater ἐποπτεία’ . 33 Moreover,Kahnarguedthatthedoctrinalcontentofthephysicalpoemalsobetrays ‘areligiousorientation’,with Empedocles’ prayertothegodsandtheMuse(B 3 [=EMPD 44 LaksMost]),hisbeliefinlifeafterdeathaswellasinevilandthegoodthings thatcomewithit(B 15 [=EMPD 52 Laks-Most])and,evenmore remarkably,withhispromisetoteachhisdisciplehowtocontroltheforces ofnature(B 111 [=EMPD 43 Laks-Most]).34 Thus,asKahnconcluded, ‘thereisnoroomfora “conversion” betweenthephysicalpoemandthe Purifications,fortheauthorof OnNature isalreadyareligiousmysticwho hintsathisbeliefinimmortality’ . 35
Kahn’spivotalrevisionopenedanewpathwayinEmpedoclesstudies. Scholarsgraduallydismissedasanachronisticthenineteenth-century assumptionthatthephilosopher’sphysicaltheoriesandreligiousinterests wereincompatibleandbeganinsteadtolookatpointsofcontactbetween them.Indeed,scholarshavemadeheadwayinshowingthatthedifferent areasofEmpedocles’ thoughtarenotcontradictorybutdisplaystriking analogies.Thisinnovativeapproachhasitsmostradicalrepresentativesin C.RowettandP.Kingsley.Yet,byworkingontheanalogouspremiseof supersedingthedualismbetweenEmpedoclesthesystematic,rational philosopherandEmpedoclesthereligiousmystic,theycameupwith substantiallydifferentconclusions.
Ontheonehand,ina 1987 article,Rowettarguedforarejectionnot merelyoftheideaofEmpedoclesasadividedcharacter,butevenofthe traditionofEmpedoclesasauthoroftwopoems. 36 Speci fi cally, Rowettchallengedthecommonviewthatancientsourcesthatname Puri fi cations and OnNature inconnectiontoEmpedocles ’ versesrefer therewithtotwoseparatepoems.Shepointedoutthatnoancient authorsquotingEmpedoclesdescribetheworkfromwhichtheyquote,
31 Kahn(1960: 24).
32 B 5 (=EMPD 258 Laks-Most).SeealsoB 111 2 (=EMPD 43 2 Laks-Most).
34 Ibid. 7–8. 35 Ibid. 10.
33 Kahn(1960: 8).
36 Rowett’shypothesiswasembracedbyInwoodinhis 1992 editionofEmpedocles’ fragments(revised in 2001).
noneareconcernedtodistinguishpoemsofdifferentcontent,noneuseboth ‘physika’ and ‘katharmoi’ astitlesnormentionanydistinctionbetweenthe titlesintermsofthesubjectmatterofthepoemandnonesummarizeor describethegeneralcontentofthepoemdesignatedbythetitleused.37 Thus, Rowettconcludesthat,inlinewiththepracticeinantiquityofoccasionally referringtooneandthesameliterarywork,orvariouspartsofthesame work,bydifferentnames,thetwotitlesarealternativewaysofnamingone andthesamepoem.
However,thereportofDiogenesLaertius(8.77), τὰ
(‘the booksof OnNature andthe Katharmoi span fivethousandlinesinall’), challengesRowett’sreconstruction.HereEmpedocles’ twopoemsare mentionedinonebreathinrelationtotheirtotalnumberofverses. Moreover,afewchaptersbefore,DiogenesLaertiusquotednotonlythe openinglinesofthe Purifications (B 112 [=EMPD 4 Laks-Most]),where EmpedoclesaddresseshisfellowcitizensofAgrigento,butalsothe dedicatorylineof OnNature,inwhichhespeakstohisdisciple Pausanias(B 1 [=EMPD 41 Laks-Most]).38 ThissuggeststhatDiogenes LaertiusisawarenotmerelyofEmpedocles’ differenttitles,butalsoof separateworksthathedistinguishesintermsoftheiraddress.Thus,as Kingsleyexplains,althoughRowett’shypothesisremains ‘atheoretical possibility weareobligedonbalancetoacceptwhatDiogenessaysin theabsenceofanygenuinereasonsfordoubtinghim’ . 39 Thisleavesthe hypothesisthatEmpedocleswrotetwopoems.Nevertheless,Rowett’ s reconstructionhasthemeritofhavingquestionedthelong-standing distributionofEmpedocles’ fragmentsbetweenthetwo,highlighting thatitwasgroundedonananachronisticnineteenth-centuryreconstructionofEmpedocles’ doctrinaldualism.
Ontheotherhand,inhis 1995 book,KingsleyapproachedEmpedocles’ thoughtfromaperspectivethataimedtoencompass ‘unorthodox’ elements,suchasmagic,butendedupdismissinganygenuineinterestin naturalphilosophyorphysicsbyEmpedocles.Kingsleyarguedthat,since Empedocles’ self-definitionasan iatromantis wasinaccordwiththe agonisticandpragmaticcontextinwhichheworked,40 hewassimplyan itinerantpurifier,similartoanoriental magos. Kingsley’sapproachhasthe meritofhavinghighlighted,throughameticulousanalysisofdifferent
37 Rowett(1987a: 27). 38 Diog.Laert. 8 54
39 Kingsley(1995: 363–64).AgainstRowett’sreconstruction,seealso Sedley(1989: 270–76), Edwards (1991: 283 n.6)and Primavesi(2006b, 2007, 2013: 681–82, 685–89).
40 Seealso GemelliMarciano(2002: 106–7).
kindsofsources,thatmagicisamongEmpedocles’ concerns;yethis dismissalofthephilosopher’sgenuineinterestinnaturalphilosophyisas inadequateinthedescriptionof fifth-centurythoughtaswerenineteenthcenturystandpoints.
Incontrast,myapproachavoidsunilateralandradicalclassificationsand assumes,instead,that fifth-centurythought,andEmpedocles’ philosophyin particular,consistedofasynergyamongnaturalphilosophyandconcernsfor morereligiousbeliefsandritualpurity,andthatitcanevenextend,as Kingsleyshowed,toincludemagic.Forthisreason,myinvestigation makesextensiveuseofthebackgroundinwhichEmpedocleslivedand workedandoftherelationshipsheestablishedwithtraditionalideasas wellaswiththeinnovativethoughtofhistime.Hisfragmentswillthus becontextualizedintheirpoetical,religious,intellectualandhistorical settingsandalsoconsideredinlightoftheirlegacytolaterthought.For instance, Chapter 2 investigatesdiverseaspectsoflyricpoetry,whichilluminatestheinterpretationofseveralelementsincludedinEmpedocles’ proemto OnNature. Chapter 3 drawsattentiontoEmpedocles’ versesin dialoguewithPlato,PythagorasandlaterPlatonizinginterpretations,while Chapter 6 exploresEmpedocles’ epistemologicalviewsinrelationtoother earlyGreekepistemicreflections,notablythoseofXenophanes,Alcmaeon, theHippocraticauthorof AncientMedicine andParmenides.Inaddition, epicpoetry,especiallyHomerandHesiod,reportsonlegendaryorsemilegendarycharactersandtrendsofthoughtexpressedbynewritualsandcults arealsoconsideredthroughout.
Beyondthiscontestedbackground,akeypointinthehistoryof Empedoclesstudiesforreconsideringhisthought(and,asweshallsee,for reconstructinghisphysicalpoem)occurredin 1999,whenanextraordinary publicationenteredthesceneviaapreviouslyunknownpapyrus.Thishad beenboughtatthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturybythe Bibliothèque NationaleetUniversitairedeStrasbourg,butwasentrustedmanyyearslater toA.MartinandO.Primavesiforstudyandpublication.41 Fromits fiftytwofragments,eachcontainingnomorethanafewletters,Martinand Primavesireconstructedeleven ensembles,classifiedinalphabeticalorder,42 whichattestoverseventy-fourlinesofEmpedocles’ physicalpoem.Inthe firstvisiblelinesofthe firstcolumnof ensemble a,nineversescanberead,
41 Martin-Primavesi(1999).
42 Thatis, ensembles a–k:see Martin-Primavesi(1999: 3–6).Inaseminal 2004 article,Jankoproposed that ens.cbelongstothesamepapyrussectionas ens.a,representingitsimmediatecontinuation, while ens.fwasshowntobetheinferiorandrightportionofthesamecolumnattestedby ens. d.Janko’sreconstructionisendorsedby Primavesi(2008a)
whichSimpliciusquotedascomingfromthe firstbookofEmpedocles’ On Nature (DK 31 B 17 [=EMPD 73. 233–66 Laks-Most]).43
TheStrasbourgpapyrusthusreturnsanintegralpieceofthedirect traditionofEmpedoclesand,therewith,pre-Socraticphilosophy.44 Furthermore,itbearsimportantevidencethat,ifcorrectlyunderstood, supportsarethinkingofEmpedocles’ thoughtintermsofhisdoctrinal unity,aswellasanewreconstructionofthefragmentswithin OnNature. Specifically, ens.d–fdisplaystworemarkablelinesdealingwiththeconsumptionoffooddeemedunfitforeatingandthepainfulfatederivingfromeating it.45 TheselineswerealreadyknownfromaquotationbyPorphyry,46 and becauseoftheirreligiouscharacter,allpre-papyruseditorsallocatedthem withinthe Purifications. 47 Yetthedirecttraditionunquestionablyshowsthat Empedocles’ physicsincludedpurificatorymaterial;indeed,religiouslines withastronglypurificatoryconnotationareintegratedwithinaphysical discourseinthe firstbookof OnNature. 48 Thisevidencehighlightsthe needtorethinkthetopicsandscopeofEmpedocles’ physicalpoemand, moregenerally,of fifth-centurynaturalphilosophyasawhole.
Whilethepapyrusevidencehasinevitablylentnewpopularityto Rowett’shypothesisthatEmpedocleswastheauthorofjustonepoem,49 forthosepost-papyruseditorswhodonotunderminethereportofour sources(especiallyDiogenesLaertius,asmentionedabove)andconsequentlyassumethatEmpedocleswrotetwoworks,theStrasbourgpapyrus shouldhaveledtoareconsiderationofthecriteriaaccordingtowhich theyallocateEmpedocles’ fragmentsbetween OnNature andthe Purifications.Yetthesignificanceofthisevidenceforanewapportioning ofthefragmentsand,consequently,foranovelreconstructionof Empedocles’ poemshasbeenoverlooked.Indeed,althoughthe firsteditors
43 Phys 157, 25 Diels.
44 However, Kingsley(2002: 334)isskepticalaboutthenoveltyrepresentedbythepapyrusverses: overhalfofthemtelluslittleornothingnew:around 27 ofthemeitherarelinesof Empedocles’ poetryalreadyknownfromothersourcesorhavebeenpainstakinglyreconstructedbyeditorsindetailedimitationoflineswealreadyknew.Thisleavesuswithonly about 25 linesofwhichwecansaythattheyofferusthepromiseofsomethinggenuinelyfresh intermsofsubstanceandcontent ... whatissostrikinghere,whenallhasbeensaidand doneishowlittlefreshinformationthesefreshlinescontain.
45 PStrasb.d–f 5–6 (=EMPD 76 5–6 Laks-Most): ‘Alasthatthepitilessdaydidnotdestroyme earlier,/beforeIcontrivedterribledeedsaboutfeedingwithmyclaws’
46 DeAbst 2 31 =B 139 (=EMPD 34 Laks-Most).
47 Withtheexceptionof vanderBen(1975),whosereconstructionwillbediscussedfurtherbelow.
48 ForathoroughdiscussionoftheStrasbourgpapyruswithreferencetothistopic,see Chapter 1.1.
49 OnRowett’shypothesis,seeabove.Thisisnowadvocatedby Inwood(2001), Trépanier(2004), Janko(2005) and McKirahan(2010: 230–92).
oftheStrasbourgpapyrusrecommendedreconstructingwithinthe physicalpoem50 thereferencetorebirthand,therefore,thestoryofthe godsbeingexiledtoearthandrebornasmortalbeings(notablythestory narratedinB 115 [=EMPD 10 Laks-Most]),from 2001 onwardsPrimavesi hasvehementlyadvocatedtheconservativehypothesisthatB 115 (=EMP D 10 Laks-Most)belongstothe Purifications.Thisconclusionhassince beenfollowedbyalleditorswhoarguefortwopoems.51
However,asD.Sedleyhaspointedout,52 thisstancecreatedacurious scenarioinEmpedoclesstudies.Ontheonehand,theolddogmathat Empedocles’ physicalandreligiousdoctrinesbelongtodistinctareasof histhoughthasnowbeendiscreditedasananachronisticimpositionon fifth-centurythought.Ontheotherhand, ‘theconventionalapportionmentoffragmentsbetweenthetwopoems,whichwasfoundedonthat dogma,remainslargelyunchallenged,asifithadsomeindependent authority’ . 53 In Chapter 1 Iwillshowthatithasnone.Thus,bypaying dueattentiontotheStrasbourgevidence,the firsttwochaptersofthisbook fundamentallychallengethestandardapportionmentofextantfragments between OnNature andthe Purifications andincontrastofferanoriginal versionoftheproemto OnNature,whichincludestopicsandverses dealingwiththestoryoftheguiltygodsandrebirth.
Becausemyreconstructionoftheproemto OnNature includesmany ofthetopicsandversesthathavetraditionallybeenattributedtothe Purifications,especiallythosethatfocusontheexileofthe daimon and Empedocles’ doctrineofrebirth,aquestionmayariseastowhatItakethe Purifications tobeintermsofitscontentandintent.Forthisreason,itis worthbrieflysettingoutmystance.Inthisregard,Ihaveconsiderable sympathywiththehypothesisofSedleythatthe Purifications wereoriginallyacollectionofheterogeneousmaterial,ofritualoraclesandhealing utterancesaswellaspurificatoryrulesforeverydaylife.54 Specifically, Sedleynotesthatthishypothesisissuggestedbytheversesintroducing the Purifications,B 112 (=EMPD 4 Laks-Most),55 throughwhich
50 Martin-Primavesi(1999:e.g., 113).
51 OratleastbyallofthemthatIamawareof: Tonelli(2002), Bollack(2003), Vítek(2006), Gemelli Marciano(2009), Graham(2010), Montevecchi(2010), Mansfeld-Primavesi(2011 and 2021)and Laks-Most(2016).Althoughinhis 2004 reconstructionofEmpedocles’ fragments,Trépanierargues foronlyonepoem,inlatercontributions,byremarkingontheneedtoreadEmpedocles’ physicsand doctrineofrebirthasaspiringtotheoreticalunity,hestressesthepointofB 115 (=EMPD 10 LaksMost)havingitsplaceinEmpedocles’ physics – see,e.g., Trépanier(2014: 174, 2017a: 165).
52 Sedley(1989). 53 Ibid. 271. 54 Sedley(1989: 271–73).
55 AccordingtoDiog.Laert. 8.54,B 112 (=EMPD 4 Laks-Most)constitutestheproemtothe Purifications.Foradetailedinterpretationofthisfragment,see Chapter 1 4
Empedoclestellsusthatwhereverhegoes,peoplekeepasking ‘wheretheir advantagelies,someseekingprophecies,others,longpiercedbyharsh pains,asktohearthewordofhealingforallkindsofillnesses’ . 56 As Sedleyargues,inlightoftheprogrammaticcharacteroftheseintroductory lines,itisnotunreasonabletosupposethatthe Purifications weresimply aresponseto ‘theserequests,asetofpurificatoryoraclesand “healing utterances ”’ . 57
Inthisregard,Sedleyshowsthatthosescantfragmentsthatoursources attributedtothe Purifications orcanbeconsideredaspartofthembyvirtue oftheircontentagreewiththisconclusion.Twofragmentsareexplicitly connectedwithEmpedocles’ Purifications byoursources,buttheyare highlyfragmentaryandforthisreasondifficulttocontextualize.One fragmentfocusesonplantswithdenserootsandrareshoots,58 whereas theotherfragmentconsistsofjustthreewords, ‘seventimesseven’,which oursourceconnectswiththenotionthatthefoetusiscompletelyformed aftersevenweeks.59 Admittedly,thereislittletobeinferredintermsof contentandcontextfromthesequotations,butitisnotimpossibleto assume,asSedleydoes,thattheydidnotcontainanydiscursiveexposition onplantsorembryology/childbirth,simplyofferinginstructionsforpurificationsthatincludethemedicalandevenmagicalpowerofsomeplants, ormysticalutterances(as ‘seventimesseven’ seemstobe)useful ‘inthe courseofapurificatoryadvice’ concerningchildbirth.60
Othersetsofverses,whicharenotexplicitlyconnectedtothe Purifications byoursourcesbutcannonethelessbeattributedtothispoem,consistof whatseemtoberitualprescriptionsofabstinencefromsomekindsoffood, notablylaurelleavesorbeans,oradviceonabstainingfromevilactions.61 Lastly,TheonofSmyrna62 quotessomeEmpedocleanwords,involving five springsandthe ‘indestructiblebronze’ thatmustbeusedtocutsomething, inconnectionwithapurificatoryandmysteriouscontext,whichindicates thattheymightoriginallybepartofsomeritual/purificatoryutterances. Fromalltheseinstances,asSedleyconcludes,theideawegainaboutthe Purifications isnotthatofadiscursiveexpositionofEmpedocles’ doctrineof rebirth,butratheracollectionofheterogeneousmaterialincludinginstructionsforrituals,healingadviceandpurificatoryoracles.
56 Thetranslationisby Wright(1995: 264). 57 Sedley(1989: 271–72).
58 F 26 Mansfeld-Primavesi(=EMPD 37 Laks-Most).
59 ἐν ἑπτὰἑβδομάσιν:B 153a(notinLaks-Most).ThesourceisTheonofSmyrna 104 1 Hill.
60 Sedley(1989: 272).
61 SeeB 140 (=EMPD 32 Laks-Most),B 141 (=EMPD 31 Laks-Most)andB 144 (=EMPD 33 Laks-Most).
62 Theo.Smyrn. 15 7 Hill.(=B 143 [=EMPD 35 Laks-Most]).
Finally,Sedleyshowsthatthisconclusionissupportedbythreefurther reportsof Katharmoi asakindofcomposition.63 The fi rstiswithreferencetoEpimenidesofCrete(seventhcenturyBCE),asemi-legendary fi gureofapuri fi er,whoiscreditedwiththecompositionofawork entitled Puri fi cations 64 Wedonothaveanyspeci fi cindicationsofwhat thisworkwasaboutbut,consideringEpimenides’ fameasapuri fierand thereportPlutarchoffersofhimasaman ‘learnedinreligioninthe sphereconnectedwithdivinationandinitiatoryrites ’ (ἐ νθουσιαστικ ὴ κα ὶ τελεστικ ὴ σοφ ί α ),65 itcanbeassumedthathis Purifi cations were aheterogeneoussetofpuri fi catoryadvices,divinatoryutterancesand oraclesusefulininitiatoryrites.Second,alinefromthepseudoPythagorean GoldenVerses reads: ‘butabstainfromthefoodthat Ispokeofinmy Katharmoi and AbsolutionoftheSoul’ , 66 whichclearly connectsthesekindsofcompositions withabstentionfromcertainsorts offoodandsomeritual ‘absolutions’– themesthatareassociatedwith Empedocles’ Puri fi cations too,aswehavejustseen.Third,inthe Frogs 1033,theremarkofthecomicpoetAristophanesonMusaeus’ expertisein ‘healingandoracles’ isglossedbythescholiastwiththeinformationthat Musaeus ‘composesabsolutions,initiationsand katharmoi’ (DK 2 A 6 [notinLaks-Most]).Thelegendary fi gureofMusaeuswasfamousin antiquityasachresmologistor ‘oracle-gatherer ’ ,namely ‘amanwhowent aboutlookingforpeoplewhowouldrewardhimforrecitingtothem oracleswhichheknewandwhichhadabearingontheiraffairs ’ 67 –adescriptionthatcouldbeappropriatetoEmpedoclestoowho,aswe haveseenabove,wandersfromcitytocity,givingpro fitableoracles, adviceandhealingutterancesandr eceivingforthisdivinehonours frompeople(B 112 [=EMPD 4 Laks-Most]).
Thus,compositionscalled Purifications areclearlylinkedwithcollections ofritualadvices,healingoraclesandpurificatoryutterances.Theanswer then,intermsofwhatItakeEmpedocles’ Purifications tobe,isthat,as Sedleyshowed,thispoemand OnNature aredistinctworksnotintermsof theircontent(philosophyvs.religion)oraddressees(Pausaniasvs.citizens ofAcragas;thatis,anesotericvs.exotericpoem),68 butratherontheformal
63 Sedley(1989: 273–74). 64 DK 3 A 2–3 (notinLaks-Most). 65 Plut. Sol. 12.7.
66 Car.Aur. 67f.Sedleyalsohighlightsthatthreelineslatertheauthorconcludesthiscomposition with
,whichisaclearreminiscenceofEmpedocles’ openingofthe Purifications atB 112 4 (=EMPD 4 4 Laks-Most).
67 West(1983: 40).
68 Althoughthesecondpersonsingularisgenerallyusedasacriterionforattributingthefragmentsto thephysicalpoem,theimpotenceofthiscriterionisdemonstratedby Rowett(1987a: 31–32), Sedley (1989: 273 with n.17)and Inwood(2001: 15 n.34).Thus,in Chapter 2 myreconstructionofthe
leveloftheircomposition.Thatis,whereasthe Purifications areacollection ofheterogeneousandratherbriefsayings, OnNature isadoctrinal exposition69 inwhich,asIshowinthisbook,religiousconcernsrelated tothedoctrineofrebirthandpurificationsarecentraltounderstanding Empedocles’ physicalsystem.
Insettingoutthismainargument,the firsttwochaptersofthisbook willworktogethertodemonstratethatversesrelatedtoEmpedocles’ fault, punishment,exileandrebirths,startingfromB 115 (=EMPD 10 LaksMost)andcontinuingwithallotherfragmentsrelatedtoit(theso-called demonologicalfragments),areintegraltotheproemto OnNature.Inthis respect,myreconstructionoftheintroductorysectionofthephysical poemsharessimilaritieswiththatbyN.vanderBen,whoin 1975 allocated thestoryoftheguiltygodsinB 115 (=EMPD 10 Laks-Most)andseveral otherfragmentsrelatedtoittotheopeningsectionofEmpedocles’ physical poem.However,vanderBen’sreconstructionoftheproemialfragments failedtogainafollowing,ashisinterpretationofboththestoryof theguiltygodsandEmpedocles’ cosmoswerefervidlycriticizedasan anachronisticattempttoexplainEmpedoclesinNeoplatonicterms. Specifically,ontheonehand,vanderBenrejectedthecyclicalinterpretationofEmpedocles’ cosmiccyclewhich,asD.O’Briendemonstrated,70 is indicatedbybothEmpedocles’ ownwordsandtheirearliestinterpreters, suchasPlatoandAristotle.71 Ontheotherhand,vanderBen’sinterpretationofB 115 (=EMPD 10 Laks-Most)alsobetraysastronglyNeoplatonist connotationthatisclearlyanachronisticwhenappliedtoEmpedocles.72 Thus,inhis 1981 essaydedicatedtoadetailedcriticismofvanderBen’ s study,O’Brienrestoredtheimportanceofthecyclicaldescriptionofthe cosmosinEmpedocles’ systemaswellastheneedtoreadhisphilosophy withoutturningthehistoryofancientthoughtupsidedown.73 Indoingso, O’BrienrejectedvanderBen’sreconstructionoftheproemto OnNature infavourofDiels’ apportionmentofthefragments.However,hisrejection ofvanderBen’sallocationofB 115 (=EMPD 10 Laks-Most)within openingversesof OnNature isbasedontheassumptionthatEmpedocles,inhisphysicalpoem, shiftstheaddresseeturningtodifferentinterlocutors.
69 IfImaymakearatherdaringcomparison,Iwouldsaythatthe Purifications areto OnNature what Hesiod’ s Days aretohis Work or,evenbetter,tohis Theogony:acollectionofheterogeneousadvice ontheonehandandadiscursive,didacticnarrativeontheother.
70 WithhismonumentalbookonEmpedocles’ cosmiccyclein 1969 andagainina 1981 essaythatis dedicatedtoarejectionofvanderBen’shypothesis.
71 Onthis,see Chapter 7.1. 72 See O’Brien(1981: 73–90).
73 Ibid. 90,whereO’BrienconcludesthatB 115 (=EMPD 10 Laks-Most)couldonlybepartofthe physicalpoemifthehistoryofancientphilosophyisturnedupsidedown.
Empedocles’ physicalpoemdrawsonareadingofits testimonia thathas becomeproblematic – nottosayuntenable – inlightoftheStrasbourg papyrus,asIwillshowin Chapter 1.
Inthisrespect, Chapter 1 willshow fi rsthowthepapyrusevidence changesthewayweapproachoursecondarysourcesforB 115 (=EMP D 10 Laks-Most),noneofwhichcannowbetakenasevidenceforthe attributionofthisfragmenttothe Puri fi cations.Second,therecent suggestionthattheattributionofB 115 (=EMPD 10 Laks-Most)tothe religiouspoemiscorroboratedbyr easonsofsimilarcontentwiththe proemtothe Puri fi cations,andbytheassumptionthat OnNature containsnohintsatEmpedocles ’ divinenature,74 isdemonstrably fl awed.Third,theattributionofB 115 (=EMPD 10 Laks-Most)tothe physicalpoemisestablishedbyPStrasb.d– f 3– 10 (=EMPD 76 .3– 10), whichisaninternalecho,indeedaliteraryallusion,tothestoryof Empedocles’ guiltandpunishmentnarratedinB 115 (=EMPD 10 LaksMost).Thus,inordertomakesenseofthecontentofthesepapyrusverses andtheirpoeticfunction,B 115 (=EMPD 10 Laks-Most)needsto precedetheminthepoem,whilePlutarchtellsusthatitslinesconstitute thepreludetothedoctrineproper.Theinferenceisthatthestoryofthe guiltygodsandEmpedocles ’ claimthatheisoneofthembelongstothe proemto OnNature
HavingthenshownthatareappraisalofEmpedocles’ doctrinalunityis notonlypromptedbythenatureof fifth-centuryphilosophy,butalsoand aboveallbyEmpedocles’ physicalpoemitself,whichthematizestopics concerningtheconsumptionoffooddeemedunfittobeeaten,certainfaults verylikelyrelatedtoitandtheconceptofpunishmentandrebirth, Chapter 2 willfollowuponthisconclusionandofferanewsequenceoffragments introducing OnNature.Havingalreadyestablishedin Chapter 1 theallocationofB 115 (=EMPD 10 Laks-Most)atthe incipit ofthephysicalpoem,in Chapter 2 Iwillthenarguethattheproemto OnNature consistsoflinesthat thesourcesquotedascloselyrelatedtothestoryofEmpedocles’ fault, exileandrebirthsmentionedinB 115 (=EMPD 10 Laks-Most). Thisseries,commonlyknownasthedemonologicalfragmentsand generallyreconstructedwithinthe Purifications,addsimportantdetailsto Empedocles’ ownportrayalasanexceptionalindividual,bynarratingthe firstlegofhisjourneyofexileasa katabasis totherealmofthedead.75 Itwill
74 See Primavesi(2013:e.g., 688).
75 Asearlyas 1975,vanderBen(e.g., 57–59)suggestedthattheprologuetoEmpedocles’ OnNature beginswithhis katabasis Zuntz(1971:e.g., 263)alsoreconstructedEmpedocles’ katabasis outofthe
