Empedocles Oral Style

8/9/2019 Empedocles Oral Style

1/9

Empedocles' Oral Style

Jackson P. Hershbell

The Classical Journal, Vol. 63, No. 8. (May, 1968), pp. 351-357.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8353%28196805%2963%3A8%3C351%3AEOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

The Classical Journal is currently published by The Classical Association of the Middle West and South, Inc..

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/camws.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgThu Jan 3 08:40:28 2008
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8353%28196805%2963%3A8%3C351%3AEOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Whttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/camws.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/camws.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8353%28196805%2963%3A8%3C351%3AEOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W


2/9

EMPEDOCLES' ORAL STYLE

MOST STUDIES OF EMPEDOCLESavefocused on the philosophical problemsfound in the fragments of his p0ems.l Asa result of this preoccupation with Emped-ocles the philosopher, little attention hasbeen given to the style and manner inwhich h is poems w ere composed and orig-inally presented. This is especially curioussince hexameters are not well suited for aneasy use of Greek, and many w ords,

Parmenides' poems, maintained that "it isconvenient that such writings should beboth compact and easily committed tom e m ~ r y . " ~n short, the works were "f irstlearnt by heart."5I t is generally agreed t ha t verse can bemore readily memorized than prose, but ifEmpedocles' poems were written, whatneed was there for memorizing them ? W hywere his writings not kept readily avail-because of their scansion, are e~cluded.~able ? Cornford never really answered thesePoetic form, moreover, is not the usualmedium of philosophical discourse, andEmpedocles was the last significant Greekthinker to use it.3 At least two importantquestions have not been answered satis-factorily. Fir st, why did Empedocles com-pose in the epic tradition, retaining epicmeter and language? And second, howcan the frequent repetition of lines, partlines, and even single words in the poemsbe explained? I n view of these considera-tions, the attempt to account for Emped-ocles' style is a serious one.F . M . Cornford, while examining the"esoteric" cha racte r of Empedocles' and

1 Thr ee of the most detailed over-all studies of Emp ed-ocles are: C. E. Millerd, On the interpretation of Emped-ocles (Chicago 1908); E. Bignone, Empedocle (Tur in1916) ; and W. K . C. Guthrie, A history o f Greek philos-ophy , vo1.2 (Cambridge 1965 ). Each gives som e pre-liminary and general at tention to Empedocles' style. Theirmain concern, however, is with philosophical interpre tation.* A s Bowra notes, this has led to speculation th at theGreeks adopted hexametric verse from some other language,such as Minoan or Hitt ite. See M. Bowra, "Metre," inA companion to Homer, ed. A. J . B. Wace and F. H .Stubbings (London 1962), 23 .This was pointed out by Burnet and later reaffirmedby Millerd. See J. Burnet, Early Greek philosophy (repr.New York 1957) 203, and Millerd, Interpretation, 43 n.5.

questions other than by vague reference tothe "time necessary for assimilation," andthe gradual emergence of "hidden mean-i n g ~ . " ~Much more recently W . K. C. Guthriehas explained Empedocles' use of hex-ameter simply as "a medium that comesnaturally to him as the best vehicle forh is t h o ~ g h t . " ~ u t why does verse comenaturally to Empedocles, and why is it thebest vehicle for his tho ug ht? Guthrie

leaves these questions unanswered.I n defense of G uthrie , it could be argu edthat Empedocles wrote in verse because hewas brought up in the epic tradition. Th eargument implies, however, that the epictradition was either a written one or that4 F. M. Cornford, From religion to philosophy (repr.New York 1957) 225. Italics mine.5 Zbid.Zbid. Cornford's explanation of Empedocles' use ofverse is based on Aristotle's account in the Nicomacheanethics (7.3:11 47a): "For the y being in states of drunk en-

ness repeat the arguments (dao6ei&ts) and verses ofEmpedocles; and having just learned them, they reelthem off. But they do not yet understand, since i t takestime for these verses to become par t of their thinking."7 Guthrie, History 2:135.


3/9

352

if originally oral, Em pedo cles was influ-enced by it only to the extent th at he wrotein verse. Th is defense is weakene d, how-ever, by the fact that Empedocles' poemsare characterized by a large number ofseemingly unnecessary repetitions, a direct-ness of address which seems odd to modernreaders, and a lack of clarity or consist-ency, to the extent that Guthrie agreeswith Millerd's assertion that "the impor-tant thing in understanding him is to stopt hi nk in g a t th e rig ht m ~ m e n t . " ~W asEmpedocles then writing in a deliberatelyobscure and repetitive style? Or was hesomehow incapable of expressing himselfclearly and economically in verse? Butthen why not write in prose? W as heunable to write in prose? The difficultyof writing in prose tends, in fact, to beunderestimated in a literate society. Onecannot write prose merely by conveyingthe spoken word to the page. Verse, onthe other hand, can easily be composedwitho ut the aid of w riting, especially insocieties where literacy is not widespread,e.g. as with the Balkan oral epics. If, then,Empedocles was an oral poet who madelitt le o r no use of w riting , his use ofrepetition an d lack of cla rity can be be tterunderstood, and attributed not so much tohis mind bu t to his style. I n fact, his men-tal processes ma y well have been con trolledby his medium o f expression. Fo r a writerof prose can be held responsible for failureto treat his subject concisely and system-a t i ~ a l l y ; ~ut a poet in an oral tradi tion,

8 Ib id . Th e observation tha t Emped ocles ' directness ofaddress seems strange to modern readers is made byl I i l l e r d , Interpretation 22. Th e inconsistency of Em ped-ocles ' thought has been noted by Aristotle, Gomperz,Jl i l lerd , and Guthrie. See, for example, lI i l ler d, Inter-pretation 16. Hazel E. Barnes, "U nity in the thought ofEmpedocles," C I 63 (1967) 18-23, has recently arguedthat Empedocles ' thought is consistent . According toBarnes, the problem of consistency main ly concerns theapparent d ichotomy be tween On nature a n d Purifications;in part icula r , "the problem of th e relat ion of de ity to thecosmic cycle and second tha t of m ortal to deity," see p.18.Although the compatibil i ty of t he two poems is wellargued, her somew hat restr ict ive notion of "co nsistency"seems to overlook oth er problems, e.g. Emped ocles' a p-paren t denial of e mp ty space and his doctrine of poresand effluences, or the number and relationship of thecosmic cycles.

0 By conciseness I mean the absence of superfluousexpressions. Owing to repeti t ion, th e fragments of Emp ed-

J A C K S O N P. HERSHBELL

composing from memory in verse, a dif-ficult medium for philosophical expression,cannot be judged b y the same standards.Much has been written about MilmanParry's contributions to Homeric scholar-ship.1 Apart from seeing the relevance ofmodern oral Yugoslavian poetry, he demon-strated that Homer was an oral poet, de-pending on a gradually evolved store offixed phras es or formu lae.ll Th is formulaiccharacter of Homeric language, and thenature of oral communication, have beenexamined in detail elsewhere.12 What im-portan ce, if an y, do these findings have forunde rstandin g the styl e of Em pedocles?That they are not without relevance is myhypothesis: Empedocles was an oral poet.Now, the true oral poet composes andtransmits poetry without the aid of writing.He does not work from a fixed text, thoughthe phrase s and lines of his poetry a re moreor less consta nt. His poems are deliveredorally to an audience. Hence poet andaudience rely exclusively on memory forthe preserv ation of the composition. Pres-ervation in the memory can be guaranteedonly, however, by rhythmic words orga-nized in verbal and metrical patterns hav-ocles' poem s can hardly be described as concise. Gra nte d,of co urse, tha t conciseness is not impossible in oral poetry ,there is more reason to expect i t in written prose . I t i seasier to edit a writ ten than a spoken work, and henceachieve a greater degree of thoroughness and m ethodical-ness. In short , writ ing and speech are not identical , an dthe rules or standards governing the one do not alwaysapply to the o ther .

' 0 See, for example, D. Page , History and the HomericIliad (Berkeley 1959) 218ff. ; A. B. Lord, "Homer andother ep ic poe try , " in Wace and Stubbings , A companionto Homer, 179-211: G. S. Kirk, T h e songs of Homer(Cambridge 1962) 271ff.'1See 31. Parry , L'e'pithdte traditionelle dans Hombe(Paris 1928 ) and Rf. Parry, "Studies in the epic techn iqueof oral verse-makinn." HSCP 41 (1930) 73f f . and 43(1932) I f f .12 For a trea tmen t of t he formulaic character of Hom ericlanguage, see the studies of P arr y (no te 11 above) and31. Bowra, "Style," in Wac e and Stubbings, A companionto Homer, 2811. According to Parry , L'dpithdte, 16, a' formula ' is "une expression qui est reguli6rement employee,dans les mdmes condit ions metriques, pour exprimer unecertain e idbe essentiel le." T he nature of oral commu nica-t ion has been analyzed by A. B. Lord, A singer of tales

(Cambridge, Rfass. 1960) and E. A. Havelock, Preface toPlato (Cambridge, Rfass. 1963 ). For an interesting bu tgeneral and nontechnical treatment of oral communication,see H. A. Innis, T h e bias of comm unicatioir (repr. Toronto1964) 311.


4/9

ing a degree of regularity.13 Othe r ingre-dients of oral composition are a somewhatrestricted and standardized vocabulary,and frequent repetition of phrases extend-ing in length from a word or two to severalcomplete lines, as in the formulae ofHomeric epic. Metrical regularity andrepetition, then, are essential for learningand composing long oral poems.That ancient Greece had an oral cultureis unquestionable, though there seems nounanimous agreement upon when literacybecame widespread.14 Havelock assertedthat Homer's "poet successors were writ-ers.l113 B ut he also se t ou t to prove t ha tthe culture of Plato's time was predomi-na nt ly oral.l"mpedocles (492-432 B.c.)was part of Greek oral culture as describedby Havelock.li His poetry should thusdisplay characte ristics of Greek oral cul-ture.Since it has been disputed that Homerhimself was a true oral poet who made nouse of w riting,lx the hypothesis tha t Em -pedocles was an oral poet does not rule outthe possibility that his poems were com-posed with some aid from writing; that is,he may not have been a true oral poet.Empedocles' poems, however, have metricalregularity and repetitions, two essentialcharacteristics of oral poetry.''

13 For a discussion of m emo rization and its role in oralcommunication, see Havelock, Preface 145ff.14 This question is examined in some detail by Havelock,especially 49-56.' 5 Ibid 4 6 .' 0 Havelock, Preface 38, writes: "It is fair to concludethat the cultural si tuation described by Plato is one inwhich oral communication st i l l dominates al l the importantrelation ships and valid tran saction s of life. Books of coursethere were, and the alphabet had been in use for overthree centuries, hut the question is: used by how many?and used for what purposes? Up to this point i ts introduc-tion had made l i t t le practical difference to the educationalsystem or to the intellectual l ife of adults . This is a hardconclusion to accept, not least in the eyes of scholars ofthe writ ten word."On Empedocles ' dates, see Guthrie, History 2:128.1s For a well-balanced discussion of th is problem , seeK i r k , Songs 98ff. Kirk believes tha t the hypothesis ofsome kind of wri tten te xt of th e Homeric epics is unneces-sary.19 Parmenides ' poem is also characterized by metricalregulari ty and what seems to be the repeti t ion of ideas.

In the extant fragments, however, there is no repeti t ionof identical or very similar lines, and Parmenides does notaddress his audience directly. On the con trary, i t is hewho is addressed by a goddess. Non etheless , the possibilityexists that he, too, was an oral poet.

The evidence that Empedocles' poemswere at least delivered orally is found inthe remaining fragments. For example, thefirst fragment of the Diels-Kranz arrange-ment indicates that Empedocles' poemswere designed for listening and recita-t i ~ n : ~ ~Pausanias, you must listen, son ofwise Anchites! " The imperative Kh981('hear' or 'listen') is used in two otherlines of the fragments, B17,14 and B62,3;in B112,ll the infinitive occurs.21 Theimperative ~ K O U ~'hear') also appears twice,B6,l and B17,26. Other forms of & K O ~ C L V ,the infinitive and the aorist participle, areused in B3,4 and B 23 ,l l respectively. I naddition to these verbs suggesting auditoryresponse from an audience, there are verbsindicating that Empedocles first made hispoems known by reciting them. For ex-am ple, t he Homeric form ula, dhho 6C 701ipCw, in B 8 ,l ; the repeated 6k h ' ipCw ofB17,l and B17,16; e i 6' dye T O L hllw inB3 8 , l ; and iy; i 6 e p l w in B114,2.Throughout the fragments, then, verbsoccur which strongly suggest that Emped-ocles' poem s, if not composed orall y, werea t least intended for recitation. B ut apa rtfro m this, there is other evidence of oralperformance. I n B3,l-2 th e poet invokesthe gods: "But, ye gods, avert from mytongue their madness, and guide forth apure stream (of speech) from reverentlips!" Granted th at even in written prosethe gods can be addressed directly, thispassage still makes little sense if it wasintended to be read; and to argue that i tis in some sense merely decorative orfigurative would violate the obvious mean-ing of the language: the poet is addressing

20 H . S. Long, "On th e unity of Empedocles," A I P 70(1949) 142-58 , po in ts ou t tha t the a r rangement of f rag-ments by modern ed i tors has been , to some ex ten t , the i rown reconstruction. Specifically, the assignment of frag-ments e i ther to On nature or to the Purifications has beensomewhat arbitr ary. For the purpose of this stu dy, how-ever, I have accepted the Die ls -Kranz a r rangement . Inthe remain ing notes D K = H. Die ls and W. K r a n z ,Fragmente der Vorsokratike$ (Ber l in 1952) .Guthr ie i s cor rec t in po in t ing out tha t B1 ("Pausanias ,you must l is ten . . . ") with i t s address by name to asingle person, puts the poem On nature in the t rad i t ionof admonitory poetry. Bu t this does not fully explain theuse of terms suggesting an oral si tuatio n! Guth rie, I l i s to ry2:137.


5/9

354 JACKSON P. HERSHBELL

or abo ut to speak to an audience ("guide not so long th at their composition wouldforth a pure stream [of speech] from be beyond the powers of an oral poet. I nreverent lips"). T h e somewhat enigmatic short, the contention for a written textinjunction of B5, crrcy&uai + p e v 6 ~ h h o ~ o ~ eems gratuitous, and does not account forc l a w , might simply command the responseof a listener: remember what you aretold !I n the fragments considered thus far,Empedocles seems always to assume alistener-poet relationship. H is prese ntationis essentially oral, not written; and it ismade to an audience, not to readers.Do es the charac ter of his language alsoindicate oral composition? T h e evidenceis somewhat more involved. I t could beargue d, of cou rse, th at if th e Ho me ric epicis ora l poetry-and this can be demon-strated by the formulaic character of itslanguage-then, since a similar form ulaiccharacter is evident in Empedocles' lan-guage, his poetry, too, must be oral. Theargument, however, cannot be presentedso simply, for how can we be certain thatth e oral charac teristics of Empedocles'poems were not, in fact, merely borrowingsor imitations of the Homeric style? Nowa hypothesis by its very nature cannot beproved conclusively; it is simply designedto account satisfactorily for certain phe-nomena. Hence we cannot be sure thatEmpedocles was not imitating Hom er. Onthe other hand , if the oral character isticsare borrowings, it is necessary to accountfor their presence. W as Empedocles merelyimitating Homer for the sake of imitation?W ha t purpose would he have had for doingthis? Did he perhaps admire Homer?Th er e is no evidence. Or was his imitationfunctio nal, tha t is, necessary for composingin a predominantly oral situation? Evenif his poems were recited fro m a wri ttentext, it is difficult to show that their orig-inal composition was not oral. Fo r inorder to do this, it is necessary to deter-mine how writing could have helpedEmpedocles, especially since his poems are

~ ' E A X o ? r o s can be either nominative or genitive. I neither case, the one addressed is asked to keep silent. SeeD K , 3 11 , n o t e 1 3 . 2~eydaarprobably means ' to hold ' or' to retain . '

Empedocles' formulaic repetitive style.Since only 450 of about 5,000 lines ofEmpedocles' poems are it is dif-ficult to know how r~ervasivehis use ofrepetition was. Moreover, because of therelatively sm all numbe r of ext ant frag-ments, it is not easy to determine what isform ulaic except when a given set of wordsrecurs. Nonetheless. abou t one ten th ofthe extant fragments consist of lines re-peated. Now the repetitive nature ofEmpedocles' style has been noted byothers , such as Bignone and G~thrie .~ 'nfact, several of the poet's sayings, notab lyB25, "for what is right may well be toldtwice," have usually been interpreted asshow ing th e poet's awareness of his deviceof repetition. Commenting on the longB17, where the repetition is obvious, Guth-rie remarks that "it is an unusually cleverand effective method of impressing upona reader the unity and interdependence ofall pa rts of the cosmic scheme."25 Gu thrieseems, therefore, to assume a writer-readerrelationship. T he repetition, however, doesnot always seem to emphasize the unity ofEmpedocles' cosmology. For example, theexpression Oeoi ~ t p i j l ~ i I P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ppears threetimes with some variation, in B21,12, B23,8, and B 146,3. T h e line Z + aip oq ~ v ~ h o r e ~ ~ s~ O V ~ ~ L B27P i r I Y d ~y a l w v appears in bothand B 28. In none of these examples is itclear that the unity of Empedocles' thoughtis especially emphasized. Moreover, whatneed was there for repetition a t all? W hywas t he coherence of th e system, assumingthere was one, not otherwise impressed,e.g. in a carefully written treatise?

23 See Guthrie, History 2 :135. Diogenes Laertius esti-mated tha t the poem amounted to 5 ,000 lines. Gut hriethinks the number was probably smaller.24See Bignone, Empedocl e 220-21, 602-3, especiallyno tes 3 and 4, where Bignone gives examples of repetitions.He does not discuss them in any detail , and his examplesare whole-line repetitions. See also Guthrie, History 2 :137 .S G u t h r i e , History 2:155. Italic s mine.


6/9

Other fragments, especially in view ofthe repetitive character of the poems, fur-ther suggest Empedocles' awareness of hisuse of oral techniques. Fo r exam ple, B 24 :"Fitting the heads of my tale into oneanother, not to traverse a sole and singlepath."26 I n other words, his treatm ent willbe disconnected. I s this sheer perversitybecause the poet does not want to write acoherent treatise? Or is it his awarenessthat in oral presentation and composition(for example, the academic lecture) a sub-ject cannot always be treated in a well-ordered, closely connected fashion? Alsoth e opening lines of B21, "Come now,observe this witness to my previous songs(dcipwv), lest anything in them be lackingin form . . . " m ake more sense if the poe tpresented his thoughts orally. T he termo"apoi, for example, used once in the T h e -ogony, suggests verbal communication, andif the "songs" were orally presented, thereis likelihood that something could be miss-ing or accidentally omitted.27

If Empedocles' poems were composedorally, then they could be preserved andtransmitted only insofar as they could bemem orized. He nce repetition was neces-sary for the retention bf th e poems in theminds both of t he ~ o e tnd of his audience.The repetitions are largely formulaic incharacter; that is, they often have thesame metrical value, express the sameideas, and can readily replace one an-other.2s Most of these formulae seem tooriginate with Empedocles, though severalare traditional or inherited from th e Ho-me r i c e p ic . F o r e xample , vr lhr& i jpap inB139,l is found in 11. 11.484; aCp &t677hovin B 109,2 in 11.2.455 ; d u ~ k a c v ~ k n B96,3in O d. 1.161 et passim. The phrase ai6Cpa" Guthrie's translation: ibid. 136.'25'Hes. T h . 205: lrapOevlous r ' 66pous per 8f i f ia ~a 't [ a l r d ~ a s T E . Th e v e r b 6api(erv seems to mean 'to con-verse' or 'to chat. ' See 11. 6.516.2s J , B. Hainsworth, "Structure and content in epicformulae: the question of the unique expression,"

14 (19 64 ) 155 -64, cite s several de finition s of "formul:.QH e himself maintains tha t the "essence of a formula is itsrepetition; hut the repetition can be in form (a s inmathematics) or in content (as in ceremonial language)."See p.155.

6;ov in B109,2 is reminiscent of a i 8 C p o ~i~8 l r l ~ i n 11. 1 6 .3 6 5 . T h e r e c u r re n ta r p i a h o p b o i o X p 6 ~ ~ ~ ~f B17,29 a nd B 110,8(with var iants in B26, l and B30,2) aremore generalized or abstract versions ofaepiirhopE'vov 6' i v i a v ~ o iin O d . 11.248 (seealso i r e p i ~ h o p l v w v v i a v rS v in O d . 1.16 andHes. T h . 184) . T h e use of & ~ ; p o p o i todescribe mortals in B2,4 may be intendedto recall the epithet applied to Achilleus inthe Iliad, or to the suitors of Penelope inthe Odyssey . T h e use of the Hom ericformula d h h o 6C TOL ipCw has also beennoted.29In addition to these formulae inheritedfrom the epic tradition, Empedocles useswh at seem to be the form ulae of Pa r-menides; for example, & X X d ~ ~ i o v& inB45 is taken directly from Parmenides'B14, which, in turn, is a playful imitationof 11. 5.214.30 The phrase 6adurll. ~ 6 ~ 0 su ~ lvorjuai in B3,12 recalls Parmenides' 6601 . . .clui vo?juai of B2,2. Empedocles' B28,1,&AX ii y r a c lv ~ o6 c v I uo s ( io i) ~ a i &,u aa v&aclpwv, is similar to Parmenides' B8,49,oE y & p a c i v ~ o 6 r vEuov, dpC s iv ac lpa u i ~ L p r i .Though of ten taken as a t tacks on Par-menidesj31 it is possible th at these reminis-cences ar e functional. Th ey recall th e workof Parmenides, and a t the same time enableEmpedocles to compose his own poetry.In general, the repetitions could fall intofour classifications: ( 1) repetition of nounsplus adjectives (similar to the noun-epithetform ulae of the Hom eric epics) ; ( 2 ) r e p -etitio n of part-li nes; ( 3 ) repetition ofwhole lines, singly or in blocks; (4) rep-etitio n of them e or concepts, i.e, when t heideas are similar, though expressed in dif-ferent language. Th ese classifications areartificial since there are also examples ofnoun-adjective repetitions within passageswhere lines are

28 Diels noted that lihho 86 T O [ Qpdw was 'homerisch':D K 312, note 7.Solbid. 243: "dAA6rprov $f is spielende Imitat ion vonHom. E 214, aufgenommen v. Emped. B45."Q See, for example, Burnet, Greek philosophy 227 andG. S. Kirk and J. E . R a v en , The Presocratic philosophers(Cambridge 1957) 325.Sa For example, B21,lO-12 and B23,6-8.


7/9

( 1 ) Most of t he noun-adjective repeti-tions seem purely functional, and add littleor no mea ning to a line or passage. Fo rexample, fish are twice described asi rSa~o0~~ppovrs ,n B21,ll and B23,7 in thenom inative and accusative respectively. I nB20,6 fish ar e .j8poPlha8po~, nd in B117,2the fish is i'[ahos i'hXo~o~.f the completelines containing these noun-adjectives arealso considered, it is obvious how similar,if not formulaic, they a re in character:

B20,6: (5s 6' a u" rw s B dy vo cu r ~ a i~ B 6 u r vJGpoyeh ~ Bpors

B117,2: Bayvos 7 ' oiwv6s r e ~ a i [ a h o sE h h o ~ o sixB6s

B21,ll: O?jpCs r ' oiwvoi r e ~ a iGaro6'pkyyovesixBiis

B21,ll is repeated with slight variation inB23,7 (this being accus ative). Thesewhole-line repetitions occur also in blocksof alm ost identic al lines, nam ely, B2 1,lO-12and B23,6-8: "And trees sprang up, andmen and women, beasts and birds andwater-nurtured fish, and even the long-lived gods highest in honor." ( I n B23,6-8

JACKSON P. HERSHBELL

later use does not establish the claim thatEm pedocles, too, was a writer of verse.(2) Examples of part-line repetitionshow somewhat more variation than thenoun-adjective type, and usually involvethe change of a word or two to fit themetrica l line. Fo r example, G~ahXd[av~a~rhc680vs in B35,15, but p r ~ a h h d a u o v ~ a

K E ~ E ~ ~ O V Sn B 115,8 ; dhXcluuov~a81ap?r~~isoiGay& X?jyr~ n B1 7,6, b ut G~ahXduuovraG ~ a p a a p i s oCG ap& X ? j y r ~ n B 1 7 , 1 2 ;uvvappou8~v~'A + ~ O ~ / T ~ L ~ ~ O L W -n B 7 1, butO ~ V T '' A + ~ O ~ L T ~ L d h X ' ;Iyc ~dvro8rvn B2 2,s ;Iuos (ioi) in B 28,1, b u t ~ a l Euos~clv~o0cv)i a v ~ h ~ cis b ;I?rav~an B17,7 andn B29,3 ;B20,2, but cis Zv a K~U,I.LOV in B26,S. Somepart-lines are also identical repetitions.For example, T' dp ~h 6vo vu~ cplyvas inB2,2 and B110,7 ; 61 dhhrjhwv 82 0Cov~a nB17,34, B21,13, and B26,3. Again thenature of these part-line repetitions isformulaic, which is suggestive of an oralstyle.(3) Most numerous are the repetit ionsof identical or very similar whole lines,these nouns are the objects of K T~ [O V T .)ither singly or in groups. Exam ples ofB21,lO-12 occurs in a context where theharmonious influence of Love is described.B23,6-9 is used in a simile: the harmonyresulting from the influence of Love is likethe result when painters have mixed theirpigments harmoniously. In B 100,15 and21 th e noun-ad jec tive aZu~pov 5Gwp occursin lines describing the egress and regressof a i r in a wate r-ca tcher. " E ~ T C ~ O Si&v is

used twice, in B17,ll and B26,10, againin identical verbal contexts. Once a i&v isqualified by d u sr ~ o s n B16,2. Trees aretwice qualified with the ad jective pa~ pcl, nB72 and B7 9; also in B127.v ~ d p o ~ u ~ vBeasts are &y pd~ cpo~ in B9,2n d 6 p r ~ h r ~ l r sand B20,7.T h e previous examples of no un-adjectivecombinations are suggestive of a poet'sformulaic language; their use enables himto compose orally without interrupting thepresentation of his thought. T o be sure,similar repetitions appear in later writtenpoetry, such as th at of Th eocritus. Bu t a

these are i v G i p l P ~ ~ T ~ ~ L T ~ ~ ~ ~ V O L O~ ~ T ~ O V U LX p d ~ ~ ~ ~ K ~ K ~ O L On B17,29 (with the variantfor X p d ~ ~ ~ ~n B26, l ) . B29, l -2 is repeatedin B134,2 -3 , where d ~ ds to be read insteadof an d 'shag gy' (haXv ?jrvra) is avariant for 'reproductive' (yrvvljrv~a) "Fortwo limbs do not shoot forth from hisback; no feet, no nimble knees, no re-productive organs." B1 7,l-2 is repeated inB 17,16-17, and is obviously formu laic,since in oral presentation it would servethe purpose both of emphasizing a previouspoint, and of introducing a new one.The somewhat long passage B17,7-13 isrepeated in B26,S-13 though line B26,7,ciud~rv2v uvp+dv~aT; Y ~ V ~ ~ T ~ L ,r&v h ? r~ v cP 8 ~is not found in the passage from B17 . Alsohhhciuoov~a in B 2 6, ll is a variant for6 ~ ah h d au o v ~ an B 17,12.( 4 ) Em pedocles uses lines which, thoughnot verbally identical, express similar ideasor themes. Cornfo rd notices on e of these"cross-references," the oat h set for banish-


8/9

ment from the realm of the blessed.33 Theformer occurs in B30,3 of O n n a t u r e :"which (tim e) is fixed in turn for themby a firm-based oath"; mention of thesame oa th occurs in B 115 of t h e Purifica-t ions: "sealed with firm-based oaths."Oth er exam ples of rep etition of tho ugh t,reminiscent of Parmenides, are:B13: Neither is there any part of the all

( ro c r a v ~ 6 s )empty nor overfull .B14: Xothing of the all is empty; whencecould anything enter into i t?

B17,32-3: And what could increase the all?And whence could it come? Andhow could it perish since nothing isempty of these?

Fro m th e exam ples of t he repetitions orformulae presented above, it cannot beconcluded with certainty that Empedoclescomposed orally, that he made no use ofa written text, and that each performanceof his poems was a som ewh at new com-position. T h e possibility remains tha t heand his students simply memorized amanuscript. Bu t tha t some oral techniquesplayed a role in the composition andpreservation of the poems cannot be easilydenied.* Cornford, Religion t o philosophy 237.

The hypothesis that Empedocles was anoral poet accounts reasonably well for hisuse of verse (h e was the last im por tantGreek thinker to use it) and his contin-uance in the epic tradition. Evidence oforal delivery is found in the poet's use ofverbs for hearing and speaking. His poemsseem designed for recitation, and his lan-guage has a formulaic character not unlikethat of the Homeric epics, a strong indica-tion of oral composition. The lack ofconciseness and clarity in Empedocles'thought can also be attributed to an oralstyle. Th e hypothesis th at Empedocles hadan oral style does not mean that his ideasmust have been presented without fore-thought before an audience. H e seems tohav e mad e some use of inhe rited form ulae,a procedure not inconsistent with tech-niques of o ral verse-making. In view ofthe repetitiousness, direct address, and lackof c larity of t he frag me nts, ther e is lessjustification for the belief of th e lite ra tescholar that Empedocles' poems wereoriginally written.

J A C K S O N . H ER S H B ELLUniversi ty of N or th Dak ota


9/9

You have printed the following article:

Empedocles' Oral Style

Jackson P. Hershbell

The Classical Journal, Vol. 63, No. 8. (May, 1968), pp. 351-357.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8353%28196805%2963%3A8%3C351%3AEOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from anoff-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Pleasevisit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

[Footnotes]

8 Unity in the Thought of Empedocles

Hazel E. Barnes

The Classical Journal, Vol. 63, No. 1. (Oct., 1967), pp. 18-23.

Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8353%28196710%2963%3A1%3C18%3AUITTOE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M

11Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making. I. Homer and Homeric Style

Milman Parry

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 41. (1930), pp. 73-147.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0073-0688%281930%2941%3C73%3ASITETO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G

20 The Unity of Empedocles' Thought

Herbert S. Long

The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 70, No. 2. (1949), pp. 142-158.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9475%281949%2970%3A2%3C142%3ATUOET%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1

28Structure and Content in Epic Formulae: The Question of the Unique Expression

J. B. Hainsworth

The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 14, No. 2. (Nov., 1964), pp. 155-164.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8388%28196411%292%3A14%3A2%3C155%3ASACIEF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS- Page 1 of 1 -

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8353%28196805%2963%3A8%3C351%3AEOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8353%28196710%2963%3A1%3C18%3AUITTOE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0073-0688%281930%2941%3C73%3ASITETO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9475%281949%2970%3A2%3C142%3ATUOET%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8388%28196411%292%3A14%3A2%3C155%3ASACIEF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8388%28196411%292%3A14%3A2%3C155%3ASACIEF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9475%281949%2970%3A2%3C142%3ATUOET%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0073-0688%281930%2941%3C73%3ASITETO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8353%28196710%2963%3A1%3C18%3AUITTOE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8353%28196805%2963%3A8%3C351%3AEOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W&origin=JSTOR-pdf

Empedocles Oral Style

Documents

Transcript of Empedocles Oral Style