“"""'""""" 7' vqw-—'Y ~—' ' v-~» —-~ ~ Y '— W — — »~ V ~ ~~~— »» -'~~»~~'-ai-17-» -W--~_..-?_.__W--W.-. . . _

Aevum Antiquum N.S.1 (2001), pp. 79-179

DENIS O’BR1EN

EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMONAND THE TWO POEMS

I. Introduction

The wandering daimon and the position of 115

Crucial to any study of Empedocles’ daimonology is the posi-tion of fr. 115. In these verses, Empedocles describes the exileof the daimon from the company of ‘the blessed ones’ and thewanderings of the exiled daimones among the four elements ofthe world that we now live in‘. At the end of the fragment (fr.115.13-14), Empedocles declares, in a pair of verses that rankamong the most famous and the most dramatic of all ancient lit-erature: <<Of these I too am now one, an exile from the gods anda wanderer, trusting to raving Strife». Did that whole group ofverses form part of the poem variously entitled P/aysika or Perip/9)/seas (‘Qn nature’), or do they come instead from the poementitled Kat/aarmoi (‘Purifications’)?

Editors in the nineteenth century were divided in theiropinion. Sturz (1805) and Karsten (1838) placed the verses atthe beginning of the Peri p/1)/seas. Stein (1852) put them at thebeginning of the Kat/nzrmoi. Diels, in his Poetarum p/n'l0s0p/10-

rnjnagmenta, published in 1901, followed Stein. Diels’ placing

1 ‘Daimon’ is attested in the Oagfbrd English dictionary. But the use is sufficientlyrare to call for a Greek, not an English plural (therefore ‘daimones’). I write of ‘dai-monology’, both for the sake of consistency and to avoid any possible confusion with‘demonology’. ‘Daimonolo ’, even when not confused with ‘demonology’, is not a

term I would normally wisgyto use in writing of Empedocles. I do so in my presenttext merely as a concession to Primavesi’s repeated use of the word. Constant talk ofEmpedocles’ ‘daimonology’ is easily taken to suggest that Empedocles had a theory ofdaimones that could somehow be considered independently of his philosophy as a

whole. I do not know if that is Primavesi’s view. It is not an opinion that I would care

to endorse. — Acknowledgement. I am most grateful to Suzanne Stern-Gillet for criticalcomment and advice in the preparation of my text.

_, , __. , ,,,,__ , ., .___ .... .___. W .. M .. _ V .... _ _

80 DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 81

of the fragment in the Kat/aarmoi was adopted by subsequent Primavesi underwent a change of mind and heart, and agreed toeditors, until Van der Ben (1975) argued for putting the verses the placing of fr. 115 at the beginning of the Kat/mrmoz.once again at the beginning of the Perip/0)/seosz. The contributors to the volume were therefore.’se_nt_ .zn

extremis a new and heavily revised version of Primavesis initialPrimm/651'? Su€€@S5i1/6 I/96565 text. In the revised version, the gap at the beginning of the PerlTh - pk)/seas has to be left unfilled. The placing of two of our longer

e most recent scholar to tackle the problem, Oliver. . " ' f. 1 ' h P ' h . f.Primavesi, was for a time persuaded by Van der Bens new-and- ttagments In two dlffetem Poems ( I 7.111 t. e , 6”}. 3/S605 I

D l d f hold placing of the fragment. The verses recovered from the 115 m the Katharmol) ls now the Same asm 16 S 6 mono t e. . . . . . f nt 4,Strasbourg papyrus carry a stichometric indication, which shows ragme S

that well over two hundred verses preceded the statement of the A fa afar mm, em-damealternate rule of Love and Strife to be found in our fr. 17, a qua Z n ggroup 0fV¢f5¢$ Which W6 are Fold by SiIT1Pli¢il15 W¢f¢ 1314611 from Primavesi’s radical about-turn will naturally be welcome to thosethe first book of the Perip/9)/seas. No doubt emboldened by that Who, like myself, have been long convinced that Diels’ decisionth5en"etY> Pntnavesi thought tn hh Pntt of What We new knew to place the verses of fr. 115 in the-Purification: was the rightto he 3 latge gap at the heginning Qt the Pe'tP/775605’ hY Plaeing ones. Indeed, now that Primavesi has come round to the samein it the detailed description of the daimon’s adventures, as Conclusion, it may even seem oriose ro argue the point anew.

3recounted in tn 115 - Why préc/oer un convertz? ‘

Such at least was the thesis put forward in the text that was In studies of the Presoeraties, even more perhaps than ininitially circulated to the contributors to this volume and which other disciplines, it is not so much the Qgnclugign that counts as

We were inittah)’ asked to enmment nP°n- In the Pnhhshed Vet‘ the use that is made of argument and evidence. If therefore, insion of Primavesis article, that thesis has been abandoned. As this article) 1 review briey passages from Plutarch, Hippolytusthe testnt Qt 3 Visit to Pan5> Organised hY Iean'C1ande Pieet> and Simplicius relating to the position of fr. I15, it is because

my understanding of the evidence to be drawn from those three2 In this brief survey of modern editors, I take no account of Inwood’s edition 9.L1tl101‘S> although it kads to th€ COI1ClL1S10n that P1‘11I1aV€Sl

(1992). Inwood is persuaded by Osborne’s claim, (1987) 24-32 and (1987a) 25-28, now adopted, nonetheless differs markedly from his l)Otl1 111that there was only one poem, and that Peri p/2)/seas and Kat/Jarmoi were <<alternative f d -

titles» or a <<double title». On Osborne’s hypothesis, the question of how the existing Orm an In COnt€nt'fragments should be divided between the two poems obviously does not arise.Primavesi, Daimonologia 4 n. 6, rightly sees that Osborne’s thesis is a non-starter. Foran examination (and rejection) of Osborne’s thesis, see O’Brien (1995) 434-436.

3 The figure T (= 300) is placed opposite the last verse of the second column Plutarchof Ensemble a of the Strasbourg papyrus (Ensemble a [II] 30). See Martin andPrimavesi (1999) 139. Traces of nine verses remain from the rst column of the same Pl /7, (D - >

Ensemble. Of these, the first five verses (therefore a [I] 1-5) coincide with the con- umre 5 6 ext Z0cluding verses of a long fragment (fr. 17.31-35) quoted by Simplicius as taken from _ , , -

the <<first book of the Phyii/ea» (p/,),,_ 15725-37; 6 5% ’Elme50i<7»g [...] év IQ» Plutarch in the De exzlzo records five verses taken from what will"P§1"<%> 1?; €1>1>d6LK@\é1"@Pq5i5®6l6IéW@Rig $5516 numb" °f"¢Y$' become fr. 115 in Diels’ Paetarum p/ailosop/Jorum fragmenta.es in r. a e ata e point; see rien - , or one or two versespossibly missing from Simplicius’ exemplar, or perhaps lost subsequently, in the trans- Cdocles llutmred» thOS€ Verses’ so Plutarch tells us’ “by Waymission of Simplicius’ text), then a simple calculation shows that the first verse ofS' l"’ ' f. 17,1 ldh b h233d fh hl(dIrn<3)nlcfl\ILi=:Srse1Lle)stsaifO\1i/3e(shppose)th‘;:Lthe (iii: wiztiiizduhted afs avfnsstt line)?Iii, £3121?(:11: 4 In writing of <<two of our longer fragments» I exclude the verses of thetion of the fragments only 55 verses (or part verses or reminiscences of a verse) pre- Strasbourg papyrus, which are the only remnants _of Empedocles’ poems that havecede fr. 17. Qn the most favourable hypothesis (i.e. supposing that Diels is right in come down to us other than in the form of quotations (and which are not thereforehis ordering of the fragments prior to fr. 17), nearly 180 verses are therefore unac- ‘fragments’ sensu stricto).counted for at the beginning of the poem. 5 O’Brien (1981) 14-35 and (1995) 429'441~ *

82 DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 83

of a prelude, at the beginning of his philosophy»6. What con- from the K4:/qarmoi would require us to prove not only that theclusion, if any, can we draw from Plutarch’s remark? word ‘philosophy’, as understood by Plutarch, would indeed

Scholars, most recently Van cler Ben, have been tempted to have applied to Whichever of the two poems we favour with ourconclude that Plutarch’s quotation was taken from the Peri p/vy- choice, our also that it would not have applied to whichever ofseos7. We know that the Peri p/1)/seos included fragments dealing the two candidates we choose to discount.with Empedocles’ theory of knowledge, his cosmology and his Without the support of that second premiss, Plutarch’szoology, all subjects that Plutarch must surely have counted as remark, if considered in isolation from whatever other evidenceconstituting Empedocles’ ‘philosophy’. What more natural than there may be for the placing of the verses he has quoted, cannotto suppose that the ‘philosophy’ of fr. 115 came from the same be counted as support for either thesis. Plutarch’s ‘philosophy’p0¢m? may well have been intended to refer to the contents of the Peri

But the argument is inconclusive. For how can we be sure Io/oyseos. But how can we tell that it may not have applied,that the content of the poem entitled Purification: would not instead, to the Kat/aizrmoz? And vice verso. To establish eitheralso have included what Plutarch would have described as hypothesis we need to be able to exclude its contrary. And thatEmpedocles’ ‘philosophy’? Plutarch’s conception of philosophy we cannot do.was a wide and generous one, <<una speculazione di filosofia na- A

turale con destinazione etico-parenetica» (Primavesi, Plutarc/1’: iohilosop/oy’Daimono/ogia 12). Unless we can establish that the content of Th . 1 1 . h 1 1 din Oimthe Purication: would have been excluded from that sweeping at swpuca Cone uslon nonet e 658 eaves S an g O Pdescription, then We have no right to assert that Plutarch’s tag ‘at of C9ns1d?_r91:16 1mP°1_tanC€-t 1)l_11ita1'C11hn1a}1’3 1131’: 3 gtlrous E011‘

the beginning of his philosophy’ cannot have applied to the Fcpuon O W at Consntumi P 1 0501) ut C Wou not ayePu”-~mtl-om and must thgrefore b6 related to the Pen-P/9)/Se0S_ included, under that rubric, mere trivia. If we are able to dis-

cover, from other sources, that the verses Plutarch has quotedA tw0_m/gm: argument were in fact taken from the Kat/aizrmoz, then We can at once dis-

count the attempts that have recently been made to present thatThe converse is also true. Unless we can show that Plutarch’s tag poem as a mere collection of practical rules and prohibitions, <<a

would not only cover the contents of the Purification: but would set of purificatory oracles and “healing utterances”»9.also exclude the contents of the Peri to/oyseos, then we have no The verses of fr. 115 would have had to lead into some-right to claim, as Kingsley for example has done, that Plutarch’s thing more substantial for Plutarch to have been Willing to calltext favours the inclusion of the verses he has quoted in the them a ‘prelude’ to Empedocles’ ‘philosophy’.Kat/zarmois.

The point is a simple one, but it has so frequently beenmangled that it is worth repeating. All we can infer from III, SimplieiusPlutarch’s testimony, without the help of other evidence, is thatthe verses quoted must have been taken from somewhere near Simpligius’ 5;)/[5 Ofmmmgnmrythe beginning of one or other poem. The further conclusion _

that the vetses Wetg taken Specically ftom the pert P/0,5605 or Simplicius evidence needs to be looked at in a little more detail.

9 See Sedley (1998) 4: <<Why should we not suppose that the poem [i.e. the6 Plut., Po text/10, 17» 607 (Pd, (queens f1- 11§>1- 3- 5- 6 and 13)1 5 5’ Kat/uzrmoi] was nothing more nor less than [...] a set of purificatory oracles and “heal-

El1Tc£§O1<)"Q EV <1PX Tg (P17‘O6O(P1O‘§_ npOavO“p0~WTl9-aQ- ing uttc[anc¢5”?» Sec also Obbink (1993) 56 n. l5: <<The K(19Qp|.LOi are exactly whatV311 def B¢I1_(1975) 16-33, especially l6—20- Thls Was the p05lIlOI1 llllfllly their title indicates: a set of oracular-sounding selections from the larger poem On

aC1°Pte‘1 19)’ P11maV@51- Nature that circulated as a separate text», <<a series of selections stitched together rhap-8 .

Kmgsley (l996)- sodically».

,,_,,_,o_,o_______, _, _,,__., __,, , __,_, _,_.,...______.._..... _".._t.__....a-,__-.i...___...wa-___.____.“_-...-.____._. _._, ,, _ ,_ _ , _. _ . .. ,.

84 o1a1\11s O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 85

In his commentary on book eight of the Physics, Simplicius therefore, in this fragment, does not at all exclude the causalquotes the rst two verses of fr. 115 to illustrate Aristotle’s agency of Cypris (one of Empedocles’ many synonyms for the

1 charge that Empedocles presented the alternation of cosmic rest cosmic god of Love). But Simplicius is blithely unconcernedand movement as brought about ‘by necessity’ and therefore as that the use Empedocles makes of the verb in this context notlacking what Aristotle, in his own philosophy, would have only fails to illustrate, but is incompatible with Aristotle’s claimcounted as a cause“). that Empedocles relied upon chance to the exclusion of a cause.

Scholars have again been tempted to conclude that, in their The verse that Simplicius has quoted (fr. 75,2) in factoriginal context, the verses Simplicius has quoted must have undercuts the whole bias of Aristotle’s criticism, since it showsbeen associated with the feature of Aristotle’s text that that how things ‘turn out to be’ (more or less the connotationSimplicius is commenting upon, and that the Necessity of fr. that the verb wyxécvetv appears to have for Empedocles in this115 (verse 1: eotw ’Av6cy1<T|g Xp|..LO(...) was therefore taken context”) by no means excludes the presence of a causal agency.from the same poem as the theory of alternate movement and But Simplicius is so little concerned to illustrate the use thatrest that Aristotle pulls to pieces in the Physics“. Empedocles himself makes here of the concept of ‘chance’ that

As with the evidence from Plutarch’s Dc cxilio, that seem- he includes this verse as one of several quotations designed toingly simple conclusion is unwarranted. Here as elsewhere, illustrate Aristotle’s charge that Empedocles’ reliance on ‘chance’Simplicius’ aim is to quote verses that will illustrate whatever was unrelated to his two causal principles of Love and Strife. Forconcept Aristotle has called into question. It does not at all fol- all that matters to Simplicius at this point is that the wordlow that the use made of that concept in the verses which ‘chance’ features in Aristotle’s criticism and that the same wordSimplicius has chosen to record will be the same as the use to appears in the verse that he has quoted from Empedocles’ poem.which the concept is put in the passage of Aristotle that No matter that the use made of the concept is entirely differentSimplicius has taken upon himself to illustrate. in Aristotle’s text, where the appeal to ‘chance’ allegedly implies

the lack of relation to a cause, and in the fragment that‘Chczncc’cmci ‘necessity’ Simplicius has quoted, where ‘chance’ (<<how things turn out to

. . . . ' ' ' fth t' ' fth smic od ofThat last assertion may seem a trie sophistical. Let me there- b€“) ls a dlmct expresslon O 6 ac wiry O e CO gfore give but one example of what I have in mind. In an earlier Love‘passage of the Physics Aristotle complains that Empedocles reliedunreflectingly on chance in his explanation of natural phenom- Aristotle‘ necessityena”. He complains, in particular, that Empedocles failfd IO Admittedly, I have chosen an extreme case. But it is one whichrelate ‘chance’ to his twin principles of Love and Strife”. Among may Serve as 3 warning Whgn we appfgach Simpligitig’ qugtatignthe several verses which Simplicius quotes to illustrate Aristotle’s of veist-;5 from ft 115 in tht-; CQn[¢Xt of Atigtt-,tl¢’5 Qriticism ofComplaint is one Where the Verb 'wYXeWeW> Whieh $uPP0$edlY Empedocles in book eight of the Physics. Aristotle complainsillustrates EmP@dO¢1¢S’ Felianee “Pen ‘eh3I1ee‘> 15 Pfeeeded by that the alternation of periods of movement and rest is given bythe eXPre55ien Ki>T=P15<>s ev 7COO‘é‘W'I51 (ft 75,2)14- Chnee Empedocles as arising <<by necessity» écvécyxng), as <<how

things are born to be» (611 Ttécpmcev 0“()'t0)g), and therefore as

10 Arm, Pym VH1 1, 252 a 549 (252 a 9. ég éWdYm§)_ Simplic‘, P/Um lacking in what Aristotle would call a cause“. Simplicius quotes1183,19-1185,15 (fr 115,1—2 = 1184.9-10) two verses that by his time were already famous (they are quoted

U See again Van der Ben (1975), esp. 20. Again, this was the position initiallyadopted by Primavesi.

12 Arist., Phys. II 4, 196 a 19-24. Cfr. O’Brien (1969) 150-151.13 Arist., Phys. 114, 196 =1 17-19. 15 Cfr. O’Brien (1969) 213-21414 Simplic., Phys. 530,51-331,16. 16 Arist., Phys. 252 a 9: éE_, écvécyxng, 252 a 6: 611 nérpmcev omoog.

.,,_.s._ .. ,_ ,_,_,___._,, , W. .,__._., .,..._W.,_._.___..._........._,.,.M_..WW_.,.._.."...W..v____

86 DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 87

or referred to some thirty times in all by ancient authors”) and junction of the two expressions cixvécyicng and on Tté(p1>1<£-iv

that are given over to a solemn description of Necessity (fr. 0i')'t0)<;).115,1: i§0'12Lv iAvéiYK11g Xpiiocm). Since other authors (pri- But that is not at all how Simplicius sees things. To illus-marily Plutarch and Hippolytus) have preserved further verses trate Aristotleis charge, Simplicius considers himself called uponfrom the same sequence, we know that in fact, at least in the to show that Empedocles did in fact speak of ‘necessity’, whetherdozen or so verses that follow, Empedocles told the tale of an or not he did so in the context in question. Well-known versesexiled daimon and that there was in the immediate context no are therefore brought in, which give prominence to the conceptovert reference to a cosmic alternation of rest and movement. that Aristotle has drawn attention to. But Simplicius’ choice of

But all that is irrelevant to Simplicius’ immediate purpose. quotation need not at all imply that the description of NecessityAristotle has used the word (ixvécyim in his criticism of was taken from the same context as the alternation of rest andEmpedocles and Simplicius chooses two verses where Necessity movement that Aristotle is concerned to criticise.features prominently in order to illustrate Aristotle’s remark. Hischoice of quotation in no way implies that the reference to ‘Oat/osiand ‘necessity’Necessity in fr. 115 came from the context which Aristotle . . . . . . . , .d . . . . . . To say so much is not to trivialise Simplicius choice of quota-raws upon in formulating his criticismThat Conclusion does All can into uestion tion. Primavesi apparently supposes (cfr. Daimonologzia 14 n. 39)Simplicius, familiarity with Empedocles, Cosmological thwry. that Simplicius could as well have quoted, at this moment in his

~ - - , . . commentary, one of the verses found in the newly discoveredSimplicius ways are not our ways. When Aristotle complains. , . . Strasbour a rus where there is a ain an allusion to necessi-that Em edocles seems to sa (a heavil ualified form of g P py ’ g . ..expmssioi éomgv .Ewc88OK£,g aw Eingtslls) that the alter ty. Men and women, on the verge of being torn apart by Strife,

nate rule of Love and Strife ‘belongs to things of necessity’, we iiiii iiiiiiii by ii iiiiiei iiiiiciissiiy (Emiiiiiiiiii iii 2i iiiviiiyiiiiimg’ iiiiocan recognise, easily enough, that Aristotle does not necessarily iiiiyplgiiii h I b h F S. 1- - ,ut we ave on y to pro e t e context 0 imp icius quo-claim that Empedocles himself used the word necessity in pre- - . » - - -tation to see why, at this moment, Simplicius should have cho-cisel that context. AI‘lS[Otl€iS ar ument at this moment turns onY , . . g . . sen the verses that he does, rather than the verse that has turnedEmpedocles failure (as Aristotle sees it) to provide a cause for - - ~

. . 19 . up in the Strasbourg papyrus. For in his commentary on thethe alternation of cosmic movement and rest . The claim that - - - - - -

alternate movement and rest were therefore brought about iby P/iyiici’ iiiiiiieiiiiiidy ioiiiiwiiig iiis qiiiiiiiiiiiii Oi iii ii5’. , . . , . . Sim licius includes a set of three verses fr. 30 that Aristotlenecessity is added as Aristotles own inference, and indeed as a P i i

. . . himself uotes in the Meta /J sics when be brin s a ainsturel ne ative oint because Em edocles had no c n ti q ‘ii y g gp y g p : p o cep on - - -

of a first cause or prime mover, whose role would have been to piiiiiiiiiies iissiiii-iii;(iiy iiie iiiiiii€ Ciiiiigiii iiiiii iii€ biiiigi iigiiiiisi. . . . him in the P/1 szcs . In both assa es Aristotle claims thatco-ordinate the alternation in power of Love and Strife, he must y P g ’

therefore be supposed to have considered that alternation as Eiiipeiiiliiiiiiiis iiiiis i-iiii€ii iii piiiviiifi-iii iiiisi iiciiiigsiii-fiiiiiiligiliiiiqiii iiiiiiipsomethin that could be taken for ranted and in that sen s iiiiiie i iii ii iiiiiiiaiiiiii iii piiW€i O Ovii iiii iii 6 € i iiiiii Veisig g ’ Se ii es quoted in the Memlvhj/.sics, and repeated by Simplicius in his( ' 3 C 'h in t b h th ’ - . .av g O 6 ’ as OW ings are born to biii (hence ii“ Con commentary on the P/vyszcs, unlike the verses of fr. 115, make

no mention of necessity. But they do give prominence to a1; C? O;/lien (1981) 111-115- ‘broad oath’ or ‘broad oaths’, precisely the feature that appears

P ys. 1, 252 a 7. For Aristotleis use o a simi ary qualied orm of ' ' ' ' 'expression in his criticism of Empedocles (De sensu 2, 437 b 24: EOLKE v0|.Li.§0v'ti), iiioiigsick Ngcessiiy in iiiiii i isi (Tii€ii€ is Oniy the differencesee OiBrien (1970) 142-143.

19 This is the burden of Aristotle’s criticism throughout the detailed accountthat he gives of Empedocles’ theory in book eight of the Physics (VIII 1, 250 b 23- 2° Simplic. P/9)/s. 1184,14-16, Arist. Met. B 4, 1000 b 12-17. Cfr. Arist., P/1)/s.251 a 8 and 252 a 5-32). VIII 1, 250 b 23-251 a 8, 252 a 5-32.

........._...._.___.__w_..,._

88 DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 89

between singular, fr. 30,3: nkoitéog [...] opi<01), and plural, fr. IV_ Hippglytug115,2: nkoctésooi [...] opicoig.)

Simplicius’ quotation of the opening coupler of fr. 115, in Indjy-gt-t @w',{m;@

his commentary on book eight of the Physics, therefore serves a= double purpose. The two verses include, indeed give promi- The lahout eXPehded lh teaehlhg that Purely hegatlve eoheltt‘

nence to, the word that features in Aristotle’s criticism of sloh may seem eXeesslYe- The Pftssage ttom Plutatehs De exllloEmpedocles in the Physics, namely Necessity. At the same time, ahd the Passage ttolh SlthPllelus eohahaehtatY oh the P/775155» sothe couplet links up with the verses that Aristotle himself had I have atgtled> do hot allow us to Plaee tt- lla at the Peglhhlhgused in a similar context in the Metaphysics, since both sets of ot the Pe”'P/a)’se0s But helthet Passage allows us to exelhde thatverses give prominence to an ‘oath’ or to ‘oaths’. conclusion. Plutarch’s ‘philosophy’ might have been the philos-

ophy of the Peri physcos. Simplicius might have found the verses§,'mp[,'C,'m’@/qoice ofquamtion that he has quoted in the same poem as the verses on which

Aristotle has founded his account of the alternate rule ofLove andWe have therefore no reason to suppose that in h1S commentar

> Y Strife and the succession of periods of rest and movement. Whyoh the P/])’ste5> SlthPllelus has tltloted the Vetses that he does insist so strongly that what might have been need not have been?lutelde mteuxeh Oh the eohttatY> We ma)’ Well lthaglhe Initially, the reason is a simple one. The evidence providedSimp icius congratulating himself on being able to provide a by our third Witness’ Hippolytus, does not leave the questiontcouplet which nicely matches Aristotle’s claim, in the Physics, Open_ On the Contrary’ Hippolytus provides a Clear enough indi_that Empedocles relied on Necessity, and which at the same time Cation that the verses he has quoted were taken from a poemneatly complements the verses that Aristotle himself had quoted entitled PWZ-mtl-om But the account I have Outlined ofwhen makmg essentlany the samt Point agamst Emptdotles In Plutarch and of Sim licius is not intended merel to clear thethe Metaphysics. P Y

What that conclusion does not prove is that the verses' ' ' ' ' refers to (see the footnote preceding this), I made two further points, (1981) 76: first,

El/whichhclus has quoted from {T 1 Wére In fact tak€n that ‘Simplicius’ quotation of fr. 115,1-2 in his commentary on the Physics (1184,9-rom t e same Context: or even from the Same Poem, 35 the Vets‘ 10) is the only occasion when, so far as we can tell, Simplicius has quoted from the

es that Aristotle has quoted in the Ajetap/qyszt-5 Katharhioi, and secondly, that we must therefore allow for the possibility that he has. . . taken hlS quotation, not from a complete text of the poem, but from some other

Shhphclus has Chosen the Vetoes that he does 1 15’1"2) source, possibly an anthology. The first point is as true today as it ever was. The sec-because of their intrinsic Value in illustrating the text Qf ond poinlt, the existence of an anthpflogy, is, as I noted at the time, a possibility raised

' ' - ' ' - - by severa aut ors, other than myse :Wilamowitz (1929) 632-633, Horna (1930) 1OAnstotltt’ both th€ t€Xt_that,S1n?phCluS ls Commentlng upon In (not specifically in relation to fr. 115), Zuntz (1971) 214-217. It is a possibilityth€ P/7)/SZCS and, lII1Pl1C21UO1'1, th€ parallel [€Xt Of th€ which we can neither prove nor disprove, but which it would be foolish not to take_/\4@;-apjqys-l't~5_ Simplieius’ behaviour gives no reason at all to account of (see further VIII below). Neither point implies, as Primavesi seems to

h h h f think it does (see again the footnote preceding this), that I therefore supposeassume t at ls C Olcti O tluotattoh at thls moment has been Simplicius’ quotation from the Kathczrmoi to have been chosen fizute dc mieux. —

limited tQ the text of the Peri P/J)/350322, Confusion is only worse confounded when Primavesi tries to persuade his reader(Daimonologicz 14) that, instead of adopting the account I had proposed of Simplicius’quotation, it is <<simpler» (<<piu semplice») to suppose that Simplicius <<era convintoche i Physihcz e la daimonologia dei Kizthczrmoi costituissero di fatto una unita». The

‘ choice that Primavesi offers is a false one. The two theses are in no way exclusive.iee élgl Primavesi, Dllfvv/Oglcl 14 I1. £39. The expression zute dc mzcux Whether Simplicius took his quotation from an anthology, or whether conceivably he

Seems to e gwn 35 3 summary o my Position (C f- O’BfieI1 l1981l 76)- If5o>I¥1m took it from a complete copy of the Kczthizrmoi, in either case he held to thehappy to correct the impression that I had unwittingly given. I do not think that Neoplatonic interpretation of Empedocles, and would therefore have been convincedS1mP11e1u5 would have eonsidefed 1115 eholee of quotation H P13” 4/16% that <<i Physi/ea e la daimonologia dei Katharmoi costituissero di fatto una unita», since

22 I shall in fact argue that Simplicius’ quotation was taken from the Klllhélrmvi, that was indeed the corner-stone of the Neoplatonic interpretation, as I set out tol but that iS HOI something that can be inferred fl‘OH1 what SlIT1pliCiL1S t€llS US in his ghow, at 5Qme length’ in the pages follgwing of the publication in question, (1981)

commentary. In reaching that same conclusion in the publication that Primavesi 77 5qq_

I

90 DENI5 CYBRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 91

l

I . ._

Ml‘ ground for the conclusion that I believe can be drawn from the one and all must therefore stand condemned as having failed toRejhumtion "fill! /1@"@5i¢’5- T116 1551161 15 3 mom C0mPl@X 0116- T116 transmit to the faithful the unadulterated teaching of Christ and

i reason We have to be so clear about what is, and what is not, the Apestlesimplied by Plutarch’s quotation from fr. 115 in the De exilio The <<considerable research» required by such an undertak-and Simplicius’ quotation from the same fragment in his com— ing lay in the need to discover, for each heresy, a suitable paral-mentary on the Physics, is that our third source, I-Iippolytus, lel from pagan philosophical literature, a task that would haveunlike Plutarch and unlike Simplicius, did not have access to the taxed anyone’s ingenuity and which was made all the more dif-poems of Empedocles. What makes the question an especially ficult by the limited means that I-Iippolytus had at his disposal.delicate one is the distinct possibility that, in his chapters on For, unlike Plutarch and unlike Simplicius, Hippolytus has noEmpedocles, Hippolytus’ ultimate source may possibly be none personal first-hand knowledge of the pagan texts that he pressesother than Plutarch. into service, and he is therefore at the mercy of whatever sec-

To read the evidence aright, it will be essential therefore not ondary sources he can draw upon.to prejudge whatever evidence we may find in Hippolytus This is painfully obvious in the account that Hippolytusbecause of assumptions that we may already have been drawn gives of Empedocles in his initial survey of pagan philosophersinto about what is, or is not, implied by what Plutarch tells us in the first book of the Refutatio. We may well believe thatin the De exilio. Empedocles <<had a lot to say about the nature of daimones»

(Ref I 3,1: nepi Souuovcov cpi>oetoc_; sine nokkét, <<how they goHippo/ytus’ ‘Refuttztio’: boo/e one to and fro in very large numbers, governing earthly affairs»

_ _ _ , (ibid.: dig écvocotpéipovtou Stoiicovteg tot icoctoc yv ovteg“A burdehsome hnthtpnse’ and _On€ tequmng Constttetable nkeiotot). But we can only sigh when we read that, apart fromfesmtch» ts how Htppolytus d€_SCttb€S’ at the 8nd Qt _htS PtO' claiming Love and Strife’ as <<the principle of the universe» (z'oz'a'.: *

ogue, the ten books of what W111 become his Refumtzon ofall Tm, TOD Tmvwg dpxnv) Em edocles also Identied Od as. . . > P g/oereszes. The enterprise was indeed a vast, and to modern eyes “the intgnigiblg rg of thg mdnad» (ibl-a/_: T6 Tg Hovdgog

an impossible one. I-Iippolytus aims to provide an exhaustive Vospgv ngp)’ and Claimed that “an things am made out of reacpcohunt of thj major Chritian heresies known in his day (all 38 and will be dissolved into pm,» (Z-bid. Guvggeéwat gm Twpégo t em), an to prove t at, in every case, the heresiarch had Ta néwm Kod gig Twp dvakuegggeal) “Virtually thg Opin_

I I O O Q O Jdrawn his ideas, not from the Bible or from Christian revelation, ion», so Hippolytus mus us, to which “the Stoics too gave theirhut from the 5P@Chh1h°h5 of the Pagan Phh°5°Pher5> and that approval, in their expectation of a universal conagration»

(ibzd: (I) oXe6ov Kori oi Ztoticoi oovtievtou Soyiiom,13 Hi 01., Re., ‘Vorrede’ 10( . 3,26-27 Wendland): éoti év 06» rcovoo émtii tootv 1: oo6oi<6avtec_;). It is obvious that Hi ol us is(RP P u

ueotov to snixeipoouevov KOLL 1to7r7t<; 8eouevov iotopiozg. I-Iere and through- 1 t‘ ' h E d 1 f H Clitus andout I quote the text of Wendland’s edition (1916) The more recent edition b here unab 6 to ls lnguls mpe OC es tom era (. Y . . - -

Marcovich is too heavily emended to be taken as a standard text (1986). The manu- from an anachtontstlc Hhtactltus at that)’ etthet b€CauSe he hasr script readings recorded by Marcovich, the apparatus of sources and his introduction run tggethef different sources or because 11¢ is copying

are nonetheless all invaluable. <<The ten books of what will become his R6’filfdIi0 of ' ' 24all /aeresiem: purely for convenience, I shall speak of the whole work as the Rertatio. fr0m an atlthor as Ignorant aS_h1mS€lf ' , _ ,Marcovich distinguishes the P/oi/osophumemz (books I to IV, an encyclopaedia of AC1Il'11tE€(1lY> Hlppolyws 15 n0t 1I0g¢Ih¢f dhvold of CntlcalPagan ideas) {mm 31¢ R¢’./"5”“”'" omnium /Wrffium (b°°1<$ V Y0 X» HiPP°1Yw$’ s irit. In the sentences immediatel followin he rather en a -attempted derivation of Christian heresies from their pagan antecedents). Osborne, y - g’ g g(1987) 229-357, has reproduced large portions of Wendland’s text and has placed tngly acknovvkdges that What H€taClttuS has to Say turns out toopposite them an English translation from her own hand. Unfortunately, Osborne

l does not appear to be familiar with Patristic or New Testament Greek and her trans-l 1 lation contains several errors, one or two of which I shall have occasion to correct in 24 Cfr. Diels, (1879) 145: <<Empedoclis et Heracliti capita nisi prorsus inepte ab

l the pages that follow. Hippolyto excerpta sunt indoctissimum produnt scriptorem».

I

l

i

l

a __ _ ',.__... _. . .._..._.a..,._._. _-__~-7--eweVv-_-__-_-W~--~-~---—---—------—-—-~——-—-—~-----M----— -—--——-—~—-

92 DEN15 (TBRIEN I EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS

7, '7 -

be <<practically in tune with Empedocles» (Ref I 4,2: Kori smog has <<already stated what Empedocles has to say about the work-.~ ,1 5?; [so iHpéu<7t8L’EOg] Gxsoov o1')uq>0)voc IQ) ’E|.LTt8501<7»£i ings of the cosmos», he will nonetheless now repeat Empedocles’

52-(P9éY§0¢T0)- HiPP0lYYU$ P131111)’ fails Y0 3PPf¢¢i3t¢ that» if What views in order to set them side by side with those of the here-I-Ieraclitus has said is <<in tune with Empedocles», it is because 5iat¢h26.Empedocles has already been interpreted in the light of Stoic The result is dazzling. In the chapters on Empedocles inideas, derived from Heraclitus. However, to expect I-Iippolytus book seven of the Rertatio (VII 29-31), we pass from darknessto disentangle the whole web of misunderstanding and misin- into light, In order to prepare the way for proof of Marcion’sterpretation that has led to the attribution of Stoic ideas to perfidy, Hippolytus scatters his text with a galaxy of no less thanI-Ieraclitus, and of I-Ieraclitus’ ideas to Empedocles, would be to thirteen quotations taken from Empedocles (some of themexpect too much from an author of his means and of his period. repeated), and intersperses them with a detailed and even in

As it is, the faint icker of scepticism in the remark I have places enlightening commentary.quoted, if indeed it comes from Hippolytus himself and not Where has this wealth of new material come from?from whatever document he is drawing upon, is a point in his Primavesi (Daimonologia 12) takes up a suggestion made byfavour. It does at least suggest that Hippolytus is not mindlessly myself and by others on the possible origin of Hippolytus’ longreproducing the texts (or the notes) that he has in front of him, and detailed commentary. The catalogue of Plutarch’s writingsdespite his being dependent, for his account of pagan ideas, on attributed to Lamprias includes a work in ten books apparentlywhat he finds in his sources. The source that he has available for given over entirely to Empedocles27. The one ancient author toEmpedocles, in book one of the Restatio, is of minimal value quote from that work is I-Iippolytus, in book five of theto-day, except perhaps for the historian of doxography22. Re¢mtz'o28. Temptation rarely appears in so naked a form.

Plutarch’s work suggests itself as an obvious candidate for theHzlopol)/tus’ ‘Refutatiol book seven: om darkness into [lg/Jr source from which I-Iippolytus has drawn the detailed knowledge

Despite so inauspicious a beginning, I-Iippolytus sets about his at he S§‘,‘_2denlY displays of Empedocles in book seven of th€task, in the remaining books of the Restatio (of which only elmtiobooks four to ten survive), with determination and even withenthusiasm, not least in the chapters of book seven, where he 26 RefVII 29,3; ti yotp (pnotv 6 ’E|.L1te8o1<7tg Ttapi t; tof) 1<¢<;pm, 5,0,7-

decides that the heresiarch Marcion has stolen his ideas from ¢°Y<; 8i,1<<Xi 1rp<>§i1=0u£y» @716} Y8 K051 WW "W; T5 0WTl"°@P°@98W°" T11 1°“E d 1 d h h H h f h 1 h h h Kksqxtkoyou onpeoet on otcormoouott. Osborne, (1987) 311, wrongly translates

mp9 QC 95> an W ere 6 te S us t em Ore t at’ a t Oug 6 tg I00 Koopol) ototytnyg as <<the history of the cosmos». The expression refers tocosmology, ntlat to colsmogony,( to the present [and 2%5)only to te pasé. Attztlygiy is

the wa eo e run t eir ives Lam e, s.o., 2 . 3 or run t eir a airs , s.u,E5 IE vlvrilting as I hall/e done, Ilassume that I-Ieraclitus did not believe in an e/epy- III [p.y3i92]l)D, and so applies, in this conte)xt, Iraqi ‘the rtl1(nning’ of thle cosmos or (to

rosis. I sc o ar y o inion as for so on been divided on the oint, it is because Plato avoid too anthro omor hic an im ication to t e ‘wor ings’ or to t e ‘organisation’and Aristotle contiiadict each other (Aristotle in favour of anlie/epyrosis, Plato against). of the cosmos. —POsborPr)1e, (1987)P108 n. 99, quotes this passage (Ref VII 29,3) asWhy, if Plato is right, is Aristotle wrong, or vice 2/ersa? I have sought to answer that evidence that Hippolytus <<knows of an association of /eat/Jarmoi (purifrcations) withquestion elsewhere, by showing that Aristotle failed to distinguish two different forms Empedocles». But there is no mention of ‘purifications’ at this point in the text.of the so-called law of the unity of opposites. Whereas I-Ieraclitus had identified fire Osborne’s error in believing that Hippolytus somehow speaks of ‘purifications’ in hisboth with one of the two opposites and with a permanent unity underlying the oppo- eneral introduction to Empedocles’ doctrine (Ref VII 29,3) perhaps helps to explainsites (anti therefore no e/eloyrosis), Aristotle fails to share Heraclitus’ conception of re get eccentric assumption tlaat, whenll-Iippolg/tlus dogs speal?\<;IfI'co8)2)’E1'c£501§7\.é0D<;as an un erlyin unity and su oses that, if all thin s are to ‘be’ re, then the must [...] Kocotpuobg, in the fo lowing c apter o t e Re ratio 3 , , t e wor is notbecome re. Seg O’Brien (1989)), (1990), (1991a). gBut my demonstration ha); been being used as a title.too successful. In attempting to explain the origin of Aristotle’s error I have been 27 Lamprias’ catalogue n° 43 (p. 10 Sandbach): Eig ’Etm5oK7té0t Bt[3M(>t t.taken as defending Aristotle’s view, and therefore as myself attributing an ekpyrosis to 28 Hippol., Ref V 20,6 (fr. 24 Sandbach).Heraclitus. See Pradeau (2002) 237. On the contrary, my point is not that Aristotle 29 For the suggestion, see O’Brien (1969) 210 n. 3, (1981) 94-97, (1995) 440

1 was right to attribute an e/epyrosis to Heraclitus, but that he was wrong to do so, even n. 95. Cfr. Diels (1898) 399, (1901) 89,29-30, (1903) 167,29-30> Gilbft (1907)if we are able to uncover, in the fragments themselves, the origins of Aristotle’s error. 118 n. 1, Diels-Kranz (1934) 289,28-29.

l i

l

1

N an,.,_...,.W_.__,,-__-M_-, ’ . W

94 DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND TI-IE TWO POEMS

Before yielding to the temptation, we need however to be If Plutarch had told us, in the De exilio, that verses from fr.aware that I-Iippolytus’ pages cannot, as they stand, be a direct 115, in being drawn from the <<beginning of Empedocles’ phi-transcription from Plutarch’s work, since they contain theological losophy», were taken from the Peri10/4)/seas, then we should hard-and teCl1nle3lW0f<l5 Of eXPFe5$l0n$ (l<'l7i0'l€> é‘Tl7Ol<°‘Té‘5T0@5l§> ly Welcome I-Iippolytus’ telling us that those same verses havel<é5llOQ V0llTéQ) Whleh d0 net -3PPe?1Fi QT do not aPPeat With been taken from Empedocles’ Purzcations. For, on the hypoth-the same meaning, in Plutareh’s extant Worl<s3°- Unless they are esis entertained above, it would then be not simply a question ofHippolytus’ own additions, these expressions will most probably Plutarch contradicting Hippolytus, but of Plutarch contradict-point to the presence of a Platonic or more likely a Gnostic ing himself,source“. On the interpretation that I have offered of the evidence,

But Cl0es the One hYpOthesis eXClt1(le the Other? Unless we avoid that awesome dilemma. Plutarch’s ‘philosophy’, so IHippolytus’ Gnostic source was extraordinarily well informed, have argued, could relate either to the Peri p/1)/5605 Of t0 thethe reference to Plutarch’s work on Empedocles in book five of K4;/mrm0i_ The Plutarch that may perhaps speak t0 Us lh<?llteet-the Refutatio must still stand to tempt us with the possibility 1y through the paghs of 1-Iippolytus is therefbre in no Way Con-

that Hippolytus has taken atlvhtge Of Pltlttehis W0tl< t0 strained by the Plutarch that speaks to us directly in the pages ofenrich whatever other source he may have employed in book the De g_x'i[i0_

seven. For ifwe try to picture how Plutarch might have filled his No less important is it that Simplicius’ Commentary 011 the‘ten h00l<s, Oh Empetl0Cles, the 0l>Vi0t1s result W0t1l<l he Vet)’ Physics should also leave the way open to our hearing whatevermuch what We nd in Hippolytus= plenteous quotations, some it is that Plutarch may have to tell us through the mediation ofof them repeated, interspersed with generous and often enlight- Hlppolytus, For Simplicius’ knowledge, certainly of the Periening e0mII1eht32- p/1)/seas, can hardly have been less than Plutarch’s own.

Simplicius may not be the author of a multi-volume commen-HZPPOZJ/W5, P/W617?/7» Simplitiw-' ll network 0ft’?/1.467166 tary on Empedocles, but the ease with which he quotes from a» - - - , - - 7 ‘first’ and a ‘second book’, and with which he describes one quo-The ossibili fPl h h fH lp ty o utarc s presence in t e pages o ippo ytus . . , 1. , h d .

. - - , ittle wa after another leaves t e rea er inRefutatzo does not serve merely to titillate the modern readers tanon as Commg a y ’- - - - ' bt that he had before him an extensive, if not a com-obsessive interest in Quelleiirsc/aung. The possible use of little dou . . . . 1Plutamhk <t€n books, by th€ author of the Refutat1-0 Chang€S rad_ plete copy of the Perl p/1)/se0s33. If therefore SllTlpllC1Ll§ had tru y

- - - - , - - from fr. 115 were taken from the I erip/1)/seos,ically the complexion of the evidence in Plutarchs De exzlza and told us that Verws .in SimpliCiuS> Commentary on the P/7)/51-€S_ then we should hardly know whom to believe were the Plutarchof Hippolytus to tell us the contrary.

3° For references, see Wendland’s ‘Wortindex’, rm/. Ktiotg, étrcoxixtoiottxoig, On th€ lnwrpmtatlon I haV€ Offered of tha ev1d€nC€’ Wevontog. avoid, once again, so awesome a dilemma. For if, as I have29 2 2361)M""°°"i°£ (193925 ‘lfsilgnates HiPP°lYF“$’ $("‘I§‘°‘l¢1at the PO11" (Ref ‘Q1 sought to show, Simplicius’ quotation of the opening verses of

, - as <<a nosticizing yt agorean treatise» << yt agorean», presuma y . . . -

because the verses of fr. 16, attributed to Empedocles at Ref VII 29,10, are attributed the fragment leaves their original context. entirely undeterto <<Pythagoreans» at \Ref VI 25,1). Marcovich’s identification of this sourceis pre- min€d, thgn again We can attgnd tQ what l-l1pp0lytL15/Plutarchceded by a siglum which <<means that Hlippolytusl either excerpts or summarizes his - -dzrect source» (Marcovich 17). See also Marcovich (1986) 38 (on Ref VI 24-25): has to ten us Wlfhout any preconception as to What his Words<<I-Iippolytus copies a Gnosticizing Pythagorean interpretation of Empedocles». The may Q1‘ may notwhole question of a Gnostic Empedocles deserves far more extensive treatment thanI have time or space for here.

32 I therefore regard Sandbach as unduly sceptical when he writes, (1969) 103,that <<the chance of a Plutarchean origin [sa of the material on Empedocles inHippolytus, Ref VII 29,5 and 20] is minimal». But I do of course recognise that therecan be no certainty in the matter. 35 For details, see O’Brien (1969) 150-151.

1

iiIi:

1

1

i

,

i

1

V _ . .. _, 1. . . -- »» -—~-~- V -- » -~ " "'"' '"' " ‘ ' V '""' “"'““"'"'“""""" *""'*" . IWI’I'M""""'m"'"“W"""w""'"7" "TNT""T7TWITITTTTTTWIWWT ’“m"TT H i ’ T’ V Mb I I-"Ti ’ V" W I. I96 DENIS 0’BRIEN

s ' EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 97

Hzppolyms on Empedoeles:firstprinezples and cosmology i')5c0p, yv, éiépoi, tot éic to1')'t0)v y£vv(b|.L£v0i Qtpoi Koii (p1)'E<5t

. . icoii oooi 2 to?) K06 oi) KOLT0LVOOU|18V)37.With those cautionary remarks, I turn to the relevant pages of H ph Hthe Remztz'o34. Marcion’s heresy won a considerable following inthe second and third centuries, despite (or perhaps because of)its rigorous asceticism, especially in matters sexual. The asceti- To support that outline of the Empedoclean universe,cism was founded on the belief that this world is the work of an Hippolytus quotes three sets of verses (Ref VII 29,41, 1O_ andevil demiurge, the god of the Old Testament, opposed in every 13). The first, our fr. 6 (three verses, Ref V11 29,4), is a list ofway to a higher, good god, whose existence has been revealed to the four elements described by the names of four gods. Theseus by Christ. However, fortunately for us, in our pursuit of the three verses, Tzetzes tells us (Exegem 1" ”l¢m’@f”> P- 53>20'25 ecl-original setting of fr. 115, I-Iippolytus is at this point less con- Hermann), Cam-6 {Pom book Om of thg P5’? PhJ’5e05_' Thh attrhcerned to expound the details of Marcion’s heresy than to prove l>L1ti0I1 iS in itself/likely enou/gh. The quotation begigs, fr. 6,1:its similarity with the philosophy of Empedoclesh. 172'-2660690‘ Yap TEOWTOJV _P1i;°)1lO"'5O‘ TEQOJTOV, Omohh - h 15 hot

Hippolytus’ programme initially provides us (Ref VII 29,4- hard to be1‘ieve,th_at the list of the four roots or elements, espe-7) with an account of the four elements, divided into two pairs, cially the rst $11116 f0L1I1d (Cff- T5P03T0V)> appeafed 110$ latef3 pair of ‘material’ demems (5130 Hgv {)}\lK(§@), earth and Warm, than book one. But does it follow that Tzetzes was able to) placeand a pair of ‘instruments’ (560 5% 6pYOLVOL), fire and air. The the quownon h°m,h15 Per59hal khO"Yledg@ (ff the P°€m- D1615two ‘instmmmtal’ elemmts am manipulamd by two ‘dniurgic’ argues that Tzetzes attribution was in all likelihood repeatidpOVV€rS, Love and 5trif¢ (Raf \/H 29,4; 5130 5g my §pya§6H8_ from the attribution by Aetius ([pseudo-Plurarch] I 30,1) to t eVa Toig épyéwmg Tm, {mv Kai 5muOUpYOf)v.m)a6_ <<first book of the P/7)/SlC.9> of a different but related set of verses

From this statement of first principles, Hippolytus passes to (Our h' 8)39' _ . fthe workings of the cosmos (Ref VII 29,8-14). Love, he tells us, To the qhotahoh of fr,‘ 6’ Hlppohmés adcllis aillmlli O Verseiseeks to make of the whole a unity that will endure (cfr. Ref vii Whlch he had recorded harller and ascnbe tilt Z I?/iggge?29.11: ivoi iiévn to 1t6cv §v), <<forever ordered by Love in (Ref-’_VI 211)’ hut hihlch’ We are how to ( ff d d .’ d ’Such a Way as to be both Single and uniform» (imb Tg qnmag described Empedocles Love and Srrifelas ungeneratedan .111. e-

éiei Siomoouoiiusvov uovotpomog i<oii iiovosiciig). Strife, Strhchhlh (Our ff‘ ,16)' Funny’ H5135O’tuS,qu?t€;€a éffggtllogon the contrary, seeks to undo the work of Love and to produce of the Wmlld 21,5 It IS hfhhn Orclere, Y, Oye (C rl hf A 73 ’the plural world in which we live now, namely the four ele— Thg TOD KOGHOU I680’; Onoux uh 86$“) mm Thh (PL IO“;ments, <<the animals and plants that arise from them, and all theparts Of the COSIHOS that We see about L15» VII 29,12: TC’f)p, 37 Osborne (1987) 315 mistranslates ton éic toiitcov yevvcousvoi Qopoi Km

(putéi as <<the aninli)als 21§1C:1 plants createld out of thes(ef [sc. %‘1€h€lClI:1€I1tS£>.'Tl}C verg(YEvv6i0'90ii, ‘are orn’ oes not imp y ‘creation or w ic t e tec nica wowould be i<tiQ€69oii). Indeed, in any more strictly theological context, the two con-cepts (‘born’, ‘created’) would be opposed: the Son who is born of the Father is not

34 Hippol., Ref VII 29-30 (pp. 210,5-216,13 Wendland). ‘created’ by the Father (see Lampe, 5.1). Ysvvéiw, 2 [p. 311], s.z/. i<'Cti;t0, I, B, 2 [p.35 Hippolytus will have a second go at expounding Marcion’s heresy, in the 782]). Hippolytus’ meaning is simply that animals and plants are ‘born from/ arise

summary of book ten (Ref X 19). For the difference between the EWO QCCOUIIIS, S66 from’ the four elements as a result of the intervention of Strife, not because they ‘areMafcovich (1986) 34- A Usiflll iI1If0dUCIi0H I0 M¥1fCi0I1’8 d0Cffil1¢ and his iI1U¢HC@ ‘created’ by Strife. The same error occurs a few lines earlier, in Osborne’s translationwill be found in Amman (1927). The texts collected in von Harnack’s starred pages of tor {mo to?) veiicoug yivouevoc (Ref VII 29,11) as <<the things created by_Strife».(1924) remain invaluable.

38 Where they are of no possible relevance to my argument, I leave aside _dif-36 In a Christian writer, expressing his own views, Snuioupyéw and its cognates ferences between the readings retained in Diels’ edition of the fragments and readings

could of course be translated as ‘create’, ‘created’, ‘creator’, etc.; see Lampe, s.1/., 3 (p. recorded in the manuscript of Hippolytus (for example, in the first verse of fr. 6, the341). I stick to the translations ‘demiurge’, ’demiurgic’, etc., simply to avoid, as in the difference between yoip in Diels’ edition, and 'tG)v in 1-Iippolytus).

Hzppol)/tus’ supporting quotations

present text, having to adopt a different translation for the same word when 39 Diels’ argument, (1898) 396-405 (6511 401-402), is C0mPl¢X, bui HOTHippolytus is talking, not of his own beliefs, but of what Empedocles thought. unconvincing.

.1,3

V %_,,.-_,,_wb_, » H W“ >>*V* ,, v"*>1***>-* __ .. ,,..,w-W _ab-”_,-.,c_,-_b_v_.W- , W98 >Tm DENI5 O BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 99

(ii

1

lli

EOC/72l;9U|~l$VTl), three verses on the Sphere, printed by Diels as Hzlvpo/3/tus on Empedocles: the story aft/ye soul

These last verses are intriguing in more wa s than one But to return to HippOlytuS' We are not yet half Way throughI-Iippolytus third verse begins; ottoi ($(p()(fpQg Simplicius his exposition of Empedocles. HIPPOIYIUS has established, to hisrepeats the last two words, but does so, specifically to illustrate Own satlsfacnon’ that Emp€dOCl€5 has W0 Oppowd divim pOW'EmpedOcles> of (Pb)/L 1124,22 Ogsgrépwg ers, Strife, demiurge of the world we livein, and Love, whosenote Koilsi “otpoiipov iérw”). Do Simplicius’ two words con- activity issues in the unity and the uniformity of a Sphere.ceivably come from a different verse, where Empedocles did HiPPOlYtu5 now Switches from the Cosmos to th€ Soul (Ref VIIindeed use a neuter noun to designate the Sphere, or is 29>14'25)- His PurP°5e in ti“? f0n°WinS two Pages (PP- 212>17‘Simplicius’ reading merely the result of an error in transmission? 21431 Wendland) will bf: to Show that Marcion has takm fromNo less intriguingly, the rst two verses quoted by Hippolytus EmPed°Cle5 not 0111)’ his account of th@ Wmld and of two C011‘

aPP@af in 21 different setting in a rare qugtafign from trasting divine powers, but no less the ethical and dietary restric-EmP@d0Cl@S by the sixth-century Néopiatgnist philosoph, tions that the pagan philosopher and the Christian heretic alikeAmm0niu5- I11 AmmOnius’ quotation (De inm1pr@m¢;'0;¢@ 249,6- sought to impose upon their followers. These pages contain,10), what had been I-Iippolytus third verse (aim ogooiipog with one exception (verse 3, the omission of which may well be

511)’---) 15 f¢PlI=1C@d by the description of ‘a divine mind’, ‘darting the result of an error in transmission), all the verses that nowwith Swift thoughts tbmugh the whole cosmos’ (fr, 134), The constitute fr. 115, random verses of which are frequently quot-two quotations are therefore not the same. Repeated verses will (id by Othfif 3I1Ci@I1t 3L1fb0f8, and notably by Piutmb, but neverhave beenused in different contexts, in one place to describe the ¢1$¢Wh¢f@ in 50 nearly <30IT1Pl¢17¢ 3 {Omi-elements joined by Love into a Sphere (fr. 29,3), in another I The peculiarity of Hippolytus’ quotation is that he starts atplace to describe a ‘divine mind’, ‘darting with swift thoughts the end (Ref 29,14). He begins by quoting the penultimatethrough th€ Wh°l@ C°5m05’ (fl 134,45). verse of the fragment, a verse which in its original context

If Diels is right, the two fragments even came from a dif- marked the grand finale of the sequence, a sudden and dramat-ferent poem: the Sphere from the Perip/1)/seos, the ‘divine mind’ ic irruption of the poet’s own self, fr. 115.13: ttbv Kori éyda vfivfrom the Katharmoz. Tzetzes, it is true, repeats the verses ,8i|it, QDDYCXQ 9£o9£v Koci oiktng. <<Of these I too am now one,Ammonius has quoted (C/vi/ia¢i'es VII 522-526), with the rider an exile from the gods and a wanderer»4‘.that they came from an otherwise unknown ‘third book’ of the Torn from its context, the introductory pronoun (fr.Perl 10/1)/seas. But again, Diels urges us to take that claim with a 115.13: t(TJv, <<of these») no longer has point or even meaning,very large pinch of salt. Awarning which the modern editor will but that is of little import to Hippolytus, whose aim at thisdo welll to take to ‘heart, for whether or_not I_)iels.is right to mis- moment is to link the history of the individual to the story oftrust zetzes in this instance, he is certainly right in treating any- the cosmos that he has already given (Ref VII 29,4-14). Thething Tzetzes says with the utmost caution, for although Tzetzescertainly knew some things that we do not know he was not at3 . . . . , . .all abOVe Wa t‘ ' . 41 I quote the numbering of the verses given in Diels edition of the fragment.

n lng us to beheve that h€ kn€W far mOr€ than In If Primavesi is right in seeing in v. 4 a Hesiodic verse which has wrongly found itsfact he d1d40- way into the fragment (Daimonologia 30-43), then the verses from v. 4 onwards

would have to be re-numbered. Apart from the difficult (and possibly insoluble) ques-tion of v. 4, the sequence of verses adopted by Primavesi is the same as the sequence

40 . . given b Diels (1901). Other authors, notabl Van der Ben (1975), s lit u the vers-inOrdinat5e@;=€=l1fg_=::1S1:€1é3n11¢l§ (18198) 3966145135 Cfr. Sandys, (1920) 419: <<I-Iis [sa Tzetzes’] es giveii, by Plutarch and I-Iippolytus into sei,/eral distinct groups, inlierspgrsed withis mud of his ,d 15 Onexceiilf Y his @XFf0fCllnary carelessness». I/9zd.: <<I—Ie fragments drawn from other sources. When I write of <<the grand finale of thefalls {Pl hpen an remar able memory; but his memory often plays him Sequence» (as above), it is because I suppose Diels’ restoration of the original order of

6, an e is, or t e most part, dull as a writer and untrustworthy as an authori- < verses to be correct (even if one may suspect that the sequence of verses is not neces-ty». Primavesi, Dazmonologuz 8, appears to take no account of these warnings. sarily complete).

100 DEN15 O’BRIEN 3 EMPEDQCLES: T1-IE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 101

_.W.. . $71?;

. .~ » I ~ ~ ' x ’ ,quotation of fr. 115 is therefore prefaced by the remark: <<And ‘E€’§:;’V“f[°§Y,,’§’§§e’§,”ln,’§§;fsgiognxgifiiécm

ggicciiihovthis is what Empedocles tells us of his own birth» (Ref VII O“ ’ i111 ,29,14: K061 toirco éotiv E5 kéyei rcspi "cg éoimofi . -

yevvosmg o ’E1i1ce8oi<7tg), and is followed by the explana- Dietary ‘ma’ Sexual abmnemetiOI1 that Ih 10<3FiV@ 9€é9$V (V- 131 §°UY9‘§ 99999’ K011 However, that synoptic view of Hippolytus’ quotation of fr.étktng) refers to the ‘god’ that had been described in the earli- 115 fails to bring out the point that, f0f HiPP01YYu5> W§15_°f Par‘r part Of HiPP0lYYu$’ @X@g¢5i5> namely Th@ unit)’ Of Yh‘-‘ World 35 ticular interest. This is the quotation of verses describing theestablished by Love, from which Empedocles has been torn away wanderings of the exiled daim0I1, thf0WI1 _ff0m One 61911261“ toby Strife and condemned to enter the world of change and plu- another and finding a home in none. I-Iippolytus copies outrality42. these verses twice.

There follow verses (Ref VII 29,15-22) describing the jour- Hippolytus first quotes the whole sequence ((vv. 9-12, Refneyings of the daimon condemned <<to wander for thirty thou- VII 29,18-19) to emphasise that the change from body to

i sand seasons far from the blessed ones» (tpig utv unpitxg ciapoig body’, i.e. the successive series of incarnations ‘tong .\1I1))((OLQomo 1.LO(Ké(p(J)V (5£2\(§t2\.1]69OL1),<<bOrn>>in the course of time <<into 1istoiBoi7t7to1iévoig ocbuoi é1< ocbll0¢TOQ),_ 15 the Punlshmemthe diverse types of mortal beings» ((pDo1.Lév01)g Ttocvtoioi ma inicted by the demiurgfr (stflf) 011 I116 emng da1mOn' H9 thmXpovoi) 8i'5z-tot Gvntcbv) as it is forced <<to tread the bitter paths repeats his quotation of the final three verses of the sequenceof life» (éipyoikéoig Biotoio 1.L8’COL2\.2»(§LG(SOV’EO( i<e7tei’)9oi)g), (vv. 10-12, Ref VII 29,21), and now he comes to what. (fortossed from sky to sea (ociépiov uév yéip otpe uévog nov- him) is the point. In order to counter the punishments inictedTOV58 5t6)1<8i) and from sea to land (rcovtog 5’ ég X9o\/og upon us by Strife, and in order to co-operate with Love whooi°)5oig étnéntuog), from land <<to the rays of the shining sun» seeks to release us from our pains, Empedocles ordered his dis-(yoiioi 5’ ég ociwoig 82»101) (pocé90v1:og), from the sun to ciples to refrain from eatingmeatand to 21YO1(1<:lnt€l;CO1lIZ;i€W1Ih<<whirling pools of aether» (6 5’ [sa éhogl Ot19épOQ 51.1500»:-I woman» (Rff VII 29>225 TTIQ “PDQ YUVOIIKO1 OW_M_O‘Q) -vmg), hated by the elements one and all ((j¢}(}(o¢_-1 5’ The linkage of the dietary and sexual restrictions to theo'Ot7t01) 5éX8’C(X1, otnyéonot 5.35 TCé(V'C8§)45. wanderings of the exiled daimon may not immediately strike t e

The Whole sequenee will eoneluele (Ref Vll 29,23) with reader. I-Iippolytus hastens to ‘address the point, withhhegu/Z1-the opening verses of the fragment, the couplet quoted by handed emphasis. We must avoid eating meat becausef<<t el o —

Simplicius in his commentary on the P/1)/sic: (fr. 115,1-2): ies of the animals that we eat are the dwelling-places o Sou s 11:6.

daimonesl that have been punished» (Ref VII 29,22: etvoct YupI <pnoi ta otbuoitoi jctbv Qdgoov tot £’3G916118\/(16 \|I1)X(DV icsicol;

42 Van der Ben (1975) 157 ueries the use of98o9£v asalocative (<<awa from xacpévo-JV OiKnTnpLO’)'. W’: 'mus't aliold nlgeri-’Og1r§? Wllflthe gods», <<from the’side of the goals»), and takes the word to mean instead <<}by the Women’ In Ord€r to avoid Shanng In t € Wot O tr} 9will of the gods» (cfr. LS], 5.1/., 2 [p. 790]). But, when the verses are put back in the <<constantly L1I1C1O€S and E6€1I‘S apart El'1€ WOfl{ Of LOVC» (lbléllu TOorder which Diels has established, the meanin of the word seems to me suf ' ntlg cie y “ ’ ii ov M’>ov éiei Koii Sioiorcdw). The implicationdetermined by the parallel with what we are told has happened at the beginning of Tng (ptktag 45the fragment. The daimon condemned to <<wander far from the blessed ones» (fr. ls Pmsurnably that W6 do so by produclng Chlldren '115,6: émo 1i0u<étp0)v (10t(§L2»T‘|69(XL) is the daimon who is ‘an exile from the gods anda wanderer’ (v. 13: tpvydg 9266i-:v KOLl otkrng). The noun of verse 13 (étktng)repeats the verb of verse 6 (oOtéLM169(>u). The two expressions (’XTto 1J.0u<étp0Jv (v. 6)and 9866.91 (v. 13) I therefore take to be also parallel in meaning, even though, at theend of the fragment, 9eo9sv (v. 13) is attached primarily to qovyétg and only indi-rectly to dkrng. The meaning I adopt (‘from the gods’) is the meaning given to the . -

> ~ - 1 '11 13 1 P blWord by Schwyz (1959) 628 ((((WOh€r) Q15 G€n[itiv]_Ab11ativ1»)_44 There is the assumption that Empedocles discip es wi e ma e resuma Y

43 For the disconcgrtin Chan es in thg verses as recorded b H1 O1 ms from for female followers the restriction would have to be the other way round.' g g i ' > - Y pp Y i 45 For this im lication, see O’Brien (1981) 93-97.singular (v. 6: 11W) to plural (v. 7: tpuousvoug), see O Brien (1995) 466-467. P

i

i

I

i

102 DP-N15 UBRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 103

HZiRR0!)'t”5,trZiU/6 denunciatian 1. <<You claim the demiurge of the world is evil». Ref VII- - - > - 30,2: Snuioupyov tpg eivou tof) Koouou rcovnpov.There follows a whole third section of Hippolytus exegesis of 2. Y 1 . h h d h d th rk f the

<( ttt@gQWOunO@S €WOS0Empedocles (Ref VII 29,25-6), taken up by his quotation of demirgecgngoodi Ref VH 30,5: owotoov om oivoo ooovand brief commentary upon a continuous sequence of no less Kowomoowo To‘ Too omuoooyoo non/mom“than ten verses (fr. 110), which will be used as a refutation, not 3_ “you forbid [So your followors] to marry, to produce Chi1_

directly of Marcion, but of Marcion’s no less pernicious succes- dteh_ You hid [ta them] abstain hem the feeds that God hasSOI and ally ‘Prepon the Assyrian’. These verses (fr. 1 10) Will be created to be partaken of by the faithful and those who recog-put to use (Ref VII 31) to show up the pagan origins of Prepon’s nise the truth». Ref V11 30,3: i<co7t{>eig yoiusiv, texvov,and Marcion’s Christology, which denied both Christ’s human d"?-X8d9dt l5P‘nl~ld’tt°\’» eh’ e 995‘-3 ehtldev t‘; H$Td7~11\|1W

birth and his divine origin. In the course of his denunciation of tnté mdtnté Knd éTt$Y\’°J1<d<5l Thv d7~1'198ld\/47-

Prepon, Hippolytus will seek to reinforce his thesis by quoting{put vetses pf a fteah ftagment, an appeal fpt help to the Muse Each of Hippolytus three accusations 1S followed by the damn-as the poet embarks on an account of the gods (fr. 131, Ref VII ing tetetenee to EtnPed°ele5-31,4). Diels places this fragment in the Kat/mrmoi.

But, boforo turning to doal with propon and with tho quoS_ An evil demiurge: <<Are you not then ashamed to be teach-

tion of Christology (Ref VII 31), Hippolytus will triumphantly “lg the church the Words of Empedodesi” (Ref VH 302:- - - - ’ 2» E 5 X’ 7/ iproduce his tri le condemnation of Marcion (Ref VII 30) and ‘?"°‘ °“?‘ gym‘ 1m:m_ Témg WEE OK gong (Wong mv. . . . xo)v,)P ’ ai<i<7m0'iocv KOUET1 4hers the; dietary and sexual restrictions of Empedocles are given 2 A good god who undoes the an Works of th€ demiurge

pri € O place‘ Marcie‘? so Hippolytlls tells u5_ (Ref VH 30’1)’ “Are you not then blatantly announcing to your hearers thehas betrayedthe teachings of the Epistle of Saint Paul and the gospel of Emoodoo1os> Lovo, tho good oooo, (Ref VII 30,3:Gospel of Saint Mark. The truth, now to be revealed by the tr1- aft’ Op Konottpotvtge ev ’Eung5OKXéODg (PLMOW

umphant author of the Refuteztio, is that Marcion’s whole teach- ebqyygytign wig (§(1<p0(oiié\/otg tov éiyoi6t'>v;)ing has been purloined from the writings Of ‘Empedocles, son Of 3. Finally, the condemnation of meat eating and sexual inter-Meton, of Agrigentum’ (i/9z'd.). <<The construction Of his Whole course with women: <<You are teaching, without owning upheresy he [sa Marcion] has transferred from Sicily into theWords of the Gosp61> uslng th€ Very 5am€ €XPr€SSlOnS'» (lbl 47 Hippolytus reproduces the famous crux in the manuscript text of Saint Paul’stv Stoitoiyv rcéiong tg icon’ ocirtov oiipéosoag émo tg rst Epistle to Timothy (Tim. I 4,1-5); ii/st>6o?toytov [...] Kwxuovtwv yoqieiv,Zu<g)oiO“; gig Tobg 8{)OW,Y8)oLKOi)g kéyoug Heroupépow 0i1tsxeo6ou. Bpwuéitwv, iii O’(’)8(\)Q\éK'EL(_$§-IV erg ustoikniinv new EUXGPIGTIOLQ

, /\ K, 46 ‘mtg motoig icon 81E8'YV(1)KO6L tnv (X7»T]98L(XV, repeated in the vulgate: pro-Ouycoug aggcl) - hibentium nubere, akstinere a cibis. To make sense of the text of Saint Paul, as it is

The {Q1135 Qf the dgnungiatign ring lgud and Clear as recorded in the manuscripts, we have either to posit the presence of an ellipse, and to- - - - construe ad sensum, ‘forbiddin to marr , biddin abstain...’ so Blass and Debrunner

Hippolytus addressias hlrnsdf dlmctly to MarClOn' U961] 306 [§ 479,2]), or to gmend thle text inzciome way (its do several of the earlyFathers). — Marcovich, (1986) 312, supposes that uetot ebxoipiotiug (present in thetext of Saint Paul, absent from the manuscript of Hippolytus) is an error in transmis-

6 These words give rise to perhaps the weirdest error of all 111 O$h0fI1@’$ Sion, and restores the two words to the text of the Reetatio. Hippolytus’ addition ofntten1Pted translation Qt HiPP°l}’tt15- She Wnt@5» (1987) 521, Of M%1fCi0I1 “adapting ‘@810/oT)v to the text of Saint Paul is deliberate. For this and other details, see O’Brienthe structure of his entire heresy to the {gospel accounts from Sicily in the very same (1981) 93_1()() (‘Note eomplementaite 1; Pteeisiens telatives a 1-Iippolyte et awords». The <<gospel accounts» do not o course come <<from Sicily». On the contrary, Plutat ue’)_

Hippolytus) Point is that Marcion has imP°tted his evil heresy om Sicily (ewe) tq 38 Osborne translates z3:Yi<oi7ti>11:'r;11 as though it were in the active voice andzutehetq int? the Wetds of divine SetiPtute (P-is wbq eeeWYeMl<Ot)Q 7~e'Y9UQ)- meant ‘conceal’, (1987) 323: <<Well then are you not concealing the fact that you areThe tefetenee Wm The zutehtle is given mwning h)’ the d¢5CfiPti0n» in the W0td5 llching the church the doctrines of Empedocles?» I follow the Latin translation given1{nmed1atelY Pteeed1ng> of EmPed°ele5 as “Sen of Met°n> of Agtlgentum” by Duncker and Schneidewin, (1859) 397: <<exinde nonne erubescis Empedoclis doc-( El_iTt$501<7~€_ Mete°V0Q 7AKP°tY°WTtVO€)- D065 Osborne need to he reminded that tfinas ecclesiam te docere?» For this use of the middle voice, see LS], s.z/. £Y1<0iM)Tct0J,Agngentum 15 In Slellyt H lp. 470]: ‘hide oneself /aide oneitfzce,’ 2: <<as a mark of shame».

e,.a-sW_,-a_W.M,.,.n.ms104 DENIS O’BRIEN

s EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 105

to it» ‘hf: Purlmtions Of EmP¢d°Cl@$” (Ref VII 50>4* Tobe to produce children) we are serving the interests of the evil godl Ellneeoldeoee 7‘°“’e°“’e“3 eleaeemv K°‘e°‘pl*eee)49' of Strife, assisting him as he <<undoes and tears apart the work of

Love>> (Ref VII 29,22) What we now learn is that, in repeatingi By hie appeal to Vegetefianisrfl ane (at least heterosexual) ehestify those commandments,‘ Marcion is <<teaching the Purzcations ofMarcion hassoshown himself in his true colours, as a plagiarist of Empedocles» (Ref VII 3(),4)_

‘ Empedocles - By far the most natural inference will be that the versesl ‘ which Hippolytus had quoted, to establish precisely those two

g T/ae Purzfiaztzons ofEmpedocles points of Empedocles’ teaching (fr. 115,10-12), have been‘; when We haw, rgcovgred from the unhappy spgctaclg of the taken, so at least Hippolytus believes, from the Kat/aarmoi.

‘ Christian bishop raining repeated blows on the prostrate figure Z , t.of the hapless heresiarch, we see that the final taunt contains, for HZPPO Wm use ofquo ‘Z Z0”

* the modem student of EmP@d°Cl@5> 3 nugget of Pure gold It is perfectly true that the reference to ‘Empedocles’ Kat/Jarmoi’Abstinence from killing animals and from sexual inter- (Ref VII 30,4) does not follow On difggtly from Hippolytus’

l course with women were precisely the two points that quotation of verses from fr. 115 (Ref VII 29,14-25). But tog l Hippolytus had claimed to establish by his quotation of verses Someone who has followed through Hippolytus’ argument the

ll‘ Wh¢f¢ EIT1P@Cl0Cl¢$ $6115 fhfl SIOYY “Of his OWH hifth» (Ref VII reason for that dislocation is obvious. Hippolytus first sets outl 29>14-25> fl 115)» A5 HiPP0lYFl1$ had <'3XPlaih¢d> with 5P¢¢i3l to establish what he considers to be the main points of

reference to verses describing the successive incarnations of the Empedocles’ philosophy (following his statement of intent at‘ daimones (fr. 115,10-12), it is because Empedocles is one Ref VII 29,3). It is only when the essential features of

incarnate soul among many that he urged his followers to not to Empedocles’ philosophy have been put in place that Hippolytuskill and eat the animals that <<are the dwelling-places of souls will turn to use those same features in his condemnation ofthat have been punished» (Ref VII 29,21-22). By eating meat, Marcion (Ref VII 30). Quotations are introduced to supportand by having intercourse with women (and therefore helping the rst part of Hippolytus’ account (Ref VII 29), not the sec-

0nd(Ref VII 30).Thus when he charges Marcion with preaching the existence9 M . h , , , . . .arcovic , (1986) 312, adds sit 01) at the beginning of this last sentence

l so as to make the third ‘denunciation’ match the other two (Ref VII 30,2: i-lira O'0K of an evil demlurge 302) and of a good god whoéyi<oOt{>1tt1j| [...]; and Ref VII 30,3: sit’ 01’) icottottpotvciig [...] ebuyyekip [...];), \1I1d0€S th€ WOI'k5 Of th€ Cl€fT1iUfg€ VII 30,3), Hippolytus 15with therefore a question mark at the end of the sentence, VII 30,4: <8i‘t 00> taking for granted the account that he had given eat-her of pl-e-tong Eiineoidteoog 7totv6ocveig 8i6oto1<cov Kocotpuoug; As with so many of - 1 h I; E d 1 > h-1 h d f hMarcovich’s myriad emendations, the addition is possible, but hardly necessary, nor use Y t Ose two parts O mpe Oe es P 1 0501) Y’ an O t eeven desirable. Purely as a piece of rhetoric, it is just as dramatic, if not more so, for V€1‘SCS that had l)€€I1 qL1Ot€Cl in tl’1€ COLlI‘S€ Of l’l1S QICCOLIHIthe two rhetorical questions (Ref VII 30,2 and 3) to be followed by the peremptory 29 4_1accusation: <<You’re trying to get away with teaching Empedocles’ Purzeationsl». ’, ' _ , , , _

| 5° The verb used to charge Marcion with ‘not owning up’ to teaching the doc- It 15 110 dlfferent Wlth H1PPOlYtu5 thud and nal COnd€m'Wines Q5 EmP@d<>¢1¢$ (Ref V11 30»4= 7~°<\’9<5W§l€) looks back Y0 Hippolytus’ iqirial nation. W/hen he tells Marcion that, in condemning meat eatingaccusation, when he first associated Marcion with Empedocles, Ref VII 29,2: 0i>I0g - - - < -[sc. Marcion] voui§o)v Mqoeooti "robe, 1c07t7t0(>g, 611 uh Xpioto TI)'YX0l.VOI Sexlflal Intercourse W,1th WOmen> he 1S_ teaehlng the

’ potnte 6005 ,E}L1E86OK2\.éO\)QATlZO2t1) oc\’>'cof> Tcpoyeveotépqu tuyxécvovtog, Purzcatzans Of EInp€ClOCl€S (Ref VII 30,4), Hippolytus refers"c0c1)'c0t optootg eoyuottioe 500 etvoti "cot 100 1c0tv'roc_, omtioc, veiicog KOLL (pL2\.LOLV. directly to his earlier account of Empedocles, and to the Verses

( <<Marcion thought that he would not be caught out by the common run of men asI being a disciple, not, as it turns out, of Christ, but of Empedocles who as it happens that had 133311 quoted in SUPPOYY 0f that account‘E ‘ lived long before Christ, despite his taking up identical positions [sa to those of 2Q,14_25, fI~_ 115)_ The implication is Clearly that thg vgrggg‘ Empedocles] and stating as his belief that there are two causes of the universe, love - - > - - -ll ‘ and strife». The repetition (Ref VII 29,2: 7n‘|oeo6ou, 30,4: 7»0tv9étvsig) shows that quoted In Hlppolytus 1n_1nal Statement of Empedqeles P1111050’

i . Hippolytus thinks he has now finally run Marcion to earth as a crypto-empedoclean. P11)’, In OICICI‘ [O substantiate pI‘€ClS€ly tl1OS€ ITWO POIHIS (I10 meat

ll

i i

,_ ,3- -—"‘-v"'W'F

104 DENIS O’BRIENs EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 105

to it» ‘hf: Purlmtions °t EmP¢d°Cl@$” (Ref VII 50>4* wee to produce children) we are serving the interests of the evil godEuneeoexeeee Mxveowete eteaeemv Keteetplieec-949' of Strife, assisting him as he <<undoes and tears apart the work of

Love>> (Ref VII 29,22) What we now learn is that, in repeatingBy hie appeal to Vegetetianisen ane (at least heterosexual) ehestity those commandments,‘ Marcion is <<teaching the Purzceztions ofMarcion hassoshown himself in his true colours, as a plagiarist of Empedocles» (Ref V11 3(),4)_Empedocles - By far the most natural inference will be that the verses

which Hippolytus had quoted, to establish precisely those twoThe Puflmflons 0fEmPm,0"l‘?5 points of Empedocles’ teaching (fr. 115,10-12), have beenwhen We haw, mcovgred from thg unhappy spgctaclg of the taken, so at least Hippolytus believes, from the Kat/aarmoi.

Christian bishop raining repeated blows on the prostrate figure Z , f t,of the hapless heresiarch, we see that the final taunt contains, for ZPPO Wm use 0 qua ‘Z Z0”the modem student Qt EmP@d°Cl@5> 3 nugget Ot Pure gold It is perfectly true that the reference to ‘Empedocles’ Kat/Jarmoi’

Abstinence from killing animals and from sexual inter- (Ref VII 30,4) C1065 not follow On difggtly from Hippolytus’course with women were precisely the two points that quotation of verses from fr. 115 (Ref VII 29,14-25). But toHippolytus had claimed to establish by his quotation of verses Someone who has followed through Hippolytus’ argument theWhere Empedtmles tells thtl 5t°1Y “Qt his Own birth» (Ref VII reason for that dislocation is obvious. Hippolytus first sets out29>14-25> fl 115)» A5 H1PP01YFl1$ had <'3XP1a1I1¢d> W1t1"1 5P¢¢131 to establish what he considers to be the main points ofreference to verses describing the successive incarnations of the Empedocles’ philosophy (following his statement of intent atdaimones (fr. 115,10-12), it is because Empedocles is one Ref VII 29,3). It is only when the essential features ofincarnate soul among many that he urged his followers to not to Empedocles’ philosophy have been put in place that Hippolytuskill and eat the animals that <<are the dwelling-places of souls will turn to use those same features in his condemnation ofthat have been punished» (Ref VII 29,21-22). By eating meat, Marcion (Ref VII 30). Quotations are introduced to supportand by having intercourse with women (and therefore helping the rst part of Hippolytus’ account (Ref VII 29), not the sec-

0nd(Ref VII 30).Thus when he charges Marcion with preaching the existence

49 Marcovich (1986) 312, adds sit’ oi) at the beginning of this last sentenceso as to make the tliird ‘denunciation’ match the other two (Ref VII 30,2: i-lira O'0K of an evil demlurge 302) and of a good godéyi<oOt{>1tt1j| [...]; and Ref VII 30,3: sit’ 01’) icottottpotvciig [...] ebuyyekip [...];), 1111d0€S t11€ W01'1<5 Of t11€ Cl€1T11Ufg€ V11 30,3), H1PPO1Ytt15 15WIE11 I1}EP¢t°Y§ a;1M§1@$I1°I;bm=1é1§ at I11@8@§§1°tYh@I2@ng¢n<1@, Rf/'7X11 3_0};4= <8" °°>f taking for granted the account that he had given earlier of pre-tong um: OK eovg ow ocveig t otoicmv on otpuoug; s wit so many 0 - > -Marcovich’s myriad emendations, the addition is possible, but hardly necessary, nor clsely those two parts of Empedocles phllosophy’ and of theeven desirable. Purely as a piece of rhetoric, it is just as dramatic, if not more so, for verses that lléld been quoted In the course Of l’l1S QICCOLIHIthe two rhetorical questions (Ref VII 30,2 and 3) to be followed by the peremptory 4 4. , . . . , . . 29, -1accusation: <<You re trying to get away with teaching Empedocles Purzeatzonsl». , _ , , , _

5° The verb used to charge Marcion with ‘not owning up’ to teaching the doc- It 15 110 dlttetent Wlth H1PPO1Ytu5 thud and nal COnd€m'Wines Qt EmP@<1<>¢1¢$ (Ref V11 30»4= 7~°W9<5W§1€) 1°01“ back Y0 Hippolytus’ 1I}iIia1 nation. W/hen he tells Marcion that, in condemning meat eatingaccusation, when he first associated Marcion with Empedocles, Ref VII 29,2: 0i>I0g - - - < -[sc. Marcion] voui§o)v Mqoeooti "cobg 1c07t7t0(>g, 611 uh Xpioto TI)'YX0l.VOI Sexlflal Intercourse W,1th WOmen> he 1S_ teaehlng thepuentqg ,é0t7t’, ,E}L11':86OK2\.é0\)QATEO2t1)\ oc\’>'cof> Tcpoyeyeotépqu 1:1)yX\écvov/tog, Purzcatzons Of Empedocles (Ref VII 30,4), Hippolytus refers"c0c1)'c0t optootg eoyuottioe 500 etvott "cot 100 1c0zv'roc_, omtioc, veiicog KOLL tptktocv. dimctly to his earlier account of Empedocles, and to the Versgs<<Marcion thought that he would not be caught out by the common run of men asbeing a disciple, not, as it turns out, of Christ, but of Empedocles who as it happens that had b35311 quoted in 5t1PPOtt Qt that accountlived long before Christ, despite his taking up identical positions [sa to those of 2Q,14_25, fI~_ 115)_ The implication is Clearly that thg \/31-535Empedocles] and stating as his belief that there are two causes of the universe, love - - > - - -

and strife». The repetition (Ref VII 29,2: 7n‘|oeo6ou, 30,4: Mxveétvsig) shows that quoted In Hlppolytus 1n_1t1al Statement of EmP@d°F1@$ P1111050-Hippolytus thinks he has now finally run Marcion to earth as a crypto-empedoclean. P11)’, In order [O substantiate precisely those ITWO POIHIS (I10 meat

I

|4

K

I

I

1 I

1 I

I

‘ 1

i

1

4

I

I

Y

1

l

I

l

i

I1

N_,,____,____,_, _..__,.. _,..,._. .._._ H _ H _ . V, -Y t - ~ - ~ - -- x - - ~ ----i ~ ~- "W ' "~' » >"'"""""'“'"""T"-"'“"'“‘ 106 DEN15 Q’BR]EN '1’ EMPEDOCLES: TI-IE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 107

and no women), are now (Ref VII 30,4) presented as having From that point of view, the little summary that I gave ofbeen taken from <<the Purzcations of Empedocles»5l. nineteenth-century scholarship in the second paragraph of my

essay was seriously defective. If editors in the nineteenth centu-1-y were ‘divided in their opinion’ over the position of fr. 115, it

V. Hippolytus and modern scholarship was in large part because, until Stein’s edition in 1852, I116 add}-tional verses of fr. 115 quoted by Hippolytus were still

Why is it that so obvious a consequence has been seemingly set unknown, as was the reference to the Katharmoz on the follow-aside by Sturz (1805), Karsten (1838), Van der Ben (1975) and ing page of the Reltatzo. I hope that I have now sufficientlynow, most recently, by Primavesi? atoned for the defect in my account of Sturz and Karsten by

drawing attention to the date of the editio princeps ofSturz and [Qzrsten Hippolytus’ Refutatio, book seven.

So far as Sturz and Karsten are concerned, the answer is a sim-ple one. Those two eminently sane and sensible scholars did not‘set aside’ the obvious consequence to be drawn from Van der Ben can hardly hope to be so easily forgiven. In Van der

Wzn der Ben

I 3Hippolytus reference. They took no account of Hippolytus’ Ben’s Introduction, (1975) 16, we are told that the placing of fr.placing of verses from fr. 115 in the Kat/nzrmoi for the very 115 at th beginning of the Perl p_/J)/seas <<was St1ll.té1l(€I1 forgood reason that, when they were preparing their editions of granted» by Sturz and Karsten. Can it properly be said that theEmpedocles’ fragments, the one extant manuscript containing position of fr. 115 in the Perip/0)/seas was <<taken for granted» bybooks four to ten of the Reatatio had still not been made known two scholars who had no means of ‘knowing. that Hippolytusto the scholarly world. The manuscript was not brought from quotation of the fragment clearly pointed to its position in theAthos to Paris until 1842, and was not published until nearly Kat/Jarmoz? That obvious misrepresentation needs to be correct-ten years later (1851), by Miller (as supposedly at work of Origen). ed by a reminder that those two authors published their editions

long before the editio princeps of the relevant books of theReimrio.

51 The condemnation of marriage (and of sexual relations if a marriage had -already been contracted) was a striking feature of Marcion’s ethical teaching. In the But not only does Van der Ben {lot-polntput that Sturz andMarcionite Church not only ordination as priest or bishop, but even baptism, was K31-gten eguld ngt have known I"l1ppOlytL1S 1‘Cf€I'€I1C€ IO fl'1€refused except to those who had renounced sexual relationships (see Amann [1927] -_ ' ' f t it2023-2026). Hippolytus returns to the point in his summary of Marcion’s teaching Ktharmol’ sun more amazlngly’ Van d€r Ben ntiver r€ ers Oin the final book of the Refntaiia. Marcion claims that <<marriage is destruction» (Rtf O11 tl1€ CO1"1t1‘21I‘y, Van Cl€1‘ B€I1 t€llS US that l'l€ l'1Op€S E0x 19._4: Yécuov tpopocv sivoii kéyoav), <<reckoning to pain the demiurge if he “have rOV€n that the ascri tion Qf the ffa ment [Q the

- P P gbt sfr thinsththaebenb htb trrdnedb thdmire .. - ~ -iihszilznvouiigzov Miéteivatov lgnufoupygi/tlitisi t2iT)\(/)Li)1t? OL(i)T(5ti.) yeyoii/ottiavt (i)t[i)L%St) Kat/7[arm0l] ls absolutely untenable», tlesplte llls not llavmguévcov fméxoito). Sexual and dietary restraint was therefore in no way incidental to Onee referred to Hippolytus’ clear €V1d€I1C€ that tl1€ V€I'$€$ quot-I-Iippolytus’ triple condemnation of Marcion. Qther writers of the time (Gnostic - ' h t m52_writers especially) believed in the existence of an evil god who made the world and of €d In the Rejtutatw were taken from t a Vtiry Poea higher god who will save the world. \X/hat Hippolytus is so keen to pin Marciondown to, is not only the dualism that others had preached, but the specific practices 2 _ . . d. . E h bthat such a dualism entailed and that he can claim to have been derived from the phi- 5 Van der Ben writes, (1975) 25: <<With_ this elaborate iscussion o t 6. PTO 'losophy of Empedoclt-3 Hence my Writing earlier’ (1981) 15’ that) in quoting from lems concerning the position of 115 DK., which is of course a corner-stone in anyfr. 115, Hippolytus <<s’intéresse non seulement a l’alternance de l’Amour et de la ="=111g¢m¢I1Y Qt the ttaglhehtsi l h°Pe’ htsti that I have Pgfveh éhat the Zscttgtloh QtI-Iaine, mais bien plus encore 21 l’interdit, qu’il met sur le compte d’Empedocle, et the fragment to the Kat/’[‘”'m‘”] 15 absolutely tlhteha _e Zn > Se?“ >1 t it It hlsd’apres lequel on doit éviter de manger de la viande et d’“avoir des relations sexuelles exttemelY_hkelY that l l5_ Dl_<- hot °h_lY helehgs te the P[6"1]P )’5["05] tlt 3 Soft at t 6avec les femmes”». Referring to the page on which that sentence occurs, Osborne, ttagmeht 15 the vet)’ b?g"1n"1g Qt thls P°em”' _ Van der Ben’ (1.975) 20’ re ere tozlit(1987) 99, rounds on me for <<suggesting that Hippolytus is solely interested in the 2l4 of Wendlahds etlltleh (=R“-f Vll 29>2l'25)' On the tolllotlgtllg %f}ge:1§19g)5lB ’sexual and dietary prohibitions». Can Osborne not see the difference between ‘not he Peters to hook 5e"eh> Chapter 29 et the R"‘m”” £=PP-h2 0' _5 d eh/_ mg! ‘B ut’only x, but y’(‘non seulement ..., mais bien plus encore...’) and ‘only )1’? unless there 15 tucked awe)’ Somewhere 3 tetetehee Y at I ave 111155‘? ( an er ehs

l l

____ *_.c,__,_____,______,__. .___.?_,_..._,__~-.--_e -*/ »—'.-V -—-» -4» -—»~~--vv —-->' >—- ' - "<'€" -> "- """<‘ ‘ *" """ "“""'v"""""“"?" *_ ~'“_w_7-7W ?t7t_-Ft i-"W - r7v‘,_"v_ Wvvv '7 7 <'vt7vwv"_v"7I_ I -'_W"%"—' I ‘ I 77

108 DENIS O’BR1EN %.;i ‘ EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 109l i C

An unkind critic, who would nonetheless not wish to favour of the thesis that Van der Ben, (1975) 25, ndsehatge Vah det Beh with suggestio lls‘; stth less with "(P1)"“sf” aabsolutely untenable». Van der Ben therefore fails to mentionveri, will be hard put not to conclude that, if Van der Ben has Hippolytus’ evielenee, whether because he has never read I116not quoted Hippolytus’ reference to the Purzeations, it is continuation of Hippolytus’ text (Ref VII 30,4), Or b<"IC&uS¢because, after reading the verses of fr. 115 as they are quoted in Hippelytus’ wetds have conveniently slipped his memory. (5uCl1ehaptet tWehtY"hthe ot hook seveh ot the Refumtm he has Freudian ‘forgettings’ are a not uncommon feature of supposedlynonetheless never turned the page ofWendland’s edition to read scholarly writings, and need not imply any conscious dishonestyHippolytus’ implicit ascription of those same verses to the on the Part of their authors).K41‘/Wlrml 111 F116 Chapf f0U0W1I1g (Ref-I VII 30>4 lP- 216,7 Far more paradoxical is Primavesi’s attempt to come toWehdlshdl)- hot how else esh We Possthh’ hhdetstahd Voh det terms with the text of the Refutatio. For Primavesi has turned theBen’s proud claim, immediately following the sentence I have pages of Hippelytus’ Rermrig, He has read the allusion to thequoted, that he has laid before his reader a <<careful and unbiased Kat/mym0,'_ Even 50, he asserts that Hippolytus’ allusion is nointerpretation of all the relevant material»? Whatever may be the help at all towards establishing the position of fr. 115: <<sull’ap_

tthth ot the thatteh HtPPolYths’ tetetehee to thmpedoelest partenenza di B 115 all’una od all’altra opera [i.e. the Peri play-Puriftltmtionst (Ref VII 30A) eahhot Possthh’ he excluded as seas or the Kat/Jarmozl sulla base delle citazioni di Ippolito non3

tttelevaht to the Plaethg ot tt- 11559 si puo ricavare nulla» (Daimonologia 12). I-Iow can Primavesihave possibly arrived at that extraordinary conclusion?

Pnmevesl In order to discount I-Iippolytus’ evidence on the position ofBut we have not yet touched bottom in the treatment afforded th 115> Pthhavest tehhhds us that the Vetses H1PPolYths hosto Hippolytus by modern scholars. Van der Ben’s silence, how- quoted ttoth th no (R¢f_V11 29>14'24) ate sehatated ttom htsever unforgivable, is at least understandable. I-Iippolytus’ allu- tetetehee to the K”/””’m0l Vh 3d>4) h)’ the tlhotstloh ot;sion to the Kat/Jarmoi (Ref VII 30,4) is strong evidence in ttsgmeht takeh ttom the P5”?/’)’se”s (Ref VH 2?>2o> th ltd)"

From that fact alone Primavesi concludes that Hippolytus refer-book has no Index loeorum), he does not refer to book seven, chapter 30,4 of the €1"lC€ IO tl1€ lfl‘/761777101. C211'11'lOt I1€C€SSé11‘ilY (<<S€I1Z’9.lt1‘O>>) b6 t21l{€I1 85Re tano (I-Iippolytus’ reference to robe, ’Eu1t£-:ooi<7téo1)g [...] KOL9OLp},LO0Q), which t th th t O1 us has uoted frgm fr_ ll 555_fall?on p. 216 ofWendland’s edition. Van der Ben certainl does not refer to the cru- attac lng O e v€rS€S a pp yt . qY

..cial passage (Ref VII 30,4) on the pa es, (1975) 20-21, where he supposedly includes The Cogdncy of that argumsint ls fat from apparent‘ A madHippolytus among the <<quoting authors» who provide <<possible indications» of the er unfamiliar with these chapters of the R€futeZfi0 Will Pf€SL1IT1-provenance of fr. 115

53 Van der Ben (1975) 25 (immediately following on from the sentence quot- ably tak€ Primavesits argument to be that polytust referenC€ed in the footnote preceding this): <<Admittedly, this cannot in strict logic be proven. IO E1 WOI‘l{ entitled P1/t7’lC6lfl'07’lS 30,4), SiI1C€ It C3I1I10tI-Iowever, careful and unbiased interpretation of all the relevant material strongly b6 attachgd to th€ quotation immediately preceding in the textindicates that this 1S the most likely proposition», namely that fr. 115 was taken from . I 26 f 1 10 1 h 1 - tthe beginning of the Peri P/Jyseos. — Such negligence may seem incredible. But, at least of the Reftttatlo 29> > h )> 0565 W dtdver Va ue 1for the modern literature which Van der Ben quotes from, and criticises, so freely, it Qtherwige have had for determining the PIOVCHQHC6 Ofcan be proven that our author does engage in what can only be called selective read-ing. For in his commentary on fr. 30, Van der Ben solemnly tells his reader, (1975) verses quoted earher In the Chdpthh76-77, that Diels’ interpretation of éviuuakéeooiv in the opening verse of that frag-ment as referring to the limbs of the Sphere <<seems never to have been questioned byanyone». Van der Ben is obviously oblivious of ()’Brien (1967) 34, where I wrote:<<The limbs in the first line lye. of fr. 30] will be Strife’s limbs, not as is commonly 54 Primavesi, Daimenolagia 10 n. 24: <<E vero che Ippolito poco prima (VII 14-supposed the limbs of the Sphere», and has presumably never read the Note entitled 23) ha citato abbondantemente da B 115, ma queste citazioni sono separate dalla‘The interpretation of fr. 30.1’, in O’Brien (1969) 274-275 (‘Note 5’), where two menzione del titolo Kat/varmoi dalla citazione del frammento_110, che e da assegnarepages are given over to attempting to show that the ‘limbs’ in question are indeed the con certezza ai _P/1)/sika, sulla base dell’allocuzione all’unico discepolo».limbs of Strife. Mansfeld, (1985) 186-7, reprinted in Mansfeld (1989), generously 55 Primavesi continues (immediately followincg the sentence quoted in the foot-attempts to defend his compatriot. But his attempted defence back-fires. The counter- note preceding this), Daimonologia 10 n. 24: <<Quin i la menzione del titolo Kat/uzrmozexample he quotes proves a quite different point. See O’Brien (1999) 16 n. 23. non puo essere presa senz’altro come un’indicazione di appartenenza per B 115».

Eli

DENIS 0 BRIEN If 0' EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 111

The reader of the survey given of Hippolytus’ testimony on We might possibly attempt, on Primavesi.’s.behalf, to makethe preceding pages of this essay will recognise at once that such play with the distinetien heeween the prehihitien itseif (abate

an argument is nugatom \X/hen Hippolytus Charg Marcion ncnce from meat) and the reason for the prohibition (reincarna-with preaching abstinence from meat and from intercourse with tiOn)_ We might eeneeivably try to Claim that, although b0Ih F116W0m¢I1 (R67? VH 30,3-4)> 11¢ Y¢f@Y5> Without the slightest Shad" reason and the prohibition appeared in the Kat/onrmoi, nonethe-ow of a doubt, to precisely that part of his earlier account of 165$, when Hippolytus uses that title (Ref VII 30,41 T0l)QEmpedocles’ philosophy which had dealt with the same two =E n85OK)eeOi)e [___] Kqgqpttebe), he refers only to the piehi_subjects (Ref VII 29,21-22). Hippolytus’ reference to the bitlion and not to the reason, and therefore to verses that he hasK /o ' R . VII ' ' ' ' 'at mm” ( ef 3&4) Cannot but refer to @XaCtlY that Rea‘ Qt uoted (containing the prohibition) and not to the versesltiumbof EmllZ@d°Cle5’bPhli\l/F5°PhY Wl3liCh> 5° HiPP°lYtu5 Claims’ ilhatciie has quoted (containing the reasoiifor the prohibition).

as Rm ta en Over Y argon an Presented’ wrongly’ as thfi But such a distinction would be artificial in the extreme.machmg of the G°5P‘3l (Ref VII 303-4) Hippolytus very clearly supposes that <<Empedocles’

Purification» (Ref VII 50,4) embrace both the prohibition oneating animals and the reason for it: animal bodies are the

It is true that the verses Hippolytus has quoted to support his dwelling-places ‘of ‘souls’ that have been punished. The versesaccount of Empedocles’ theory (Ref VII 29,21-22, fr. 115,10- that had been introduced to substantiate the latter point (fr;12) do not describe expressis oer/iis the prohibition on eating 115,10-12), and that had been twice quoted in Hippolytusmeat or on having sexual intercourse with women. Instead, summary of Empedocles’ philosophy (Ref VII 29,19 and 21),Hippolytus has chosen, as more germane to his purpose, verses we are clearly intended to understand (Ref VII 30,4) have beenthat give what we might perhaps call the ideological foundation taken from <<the Kat/anrnioi of Empedocles».for Empedocles’ prohibition. Einpedocles commands his disci- What then can possibly be the point of Primavesfs claimples to refrain from eating meat, so Hippolytus tells us (Ref VII (D;1im0n0[0gia 10 n. 24) that Hippolytus’ I‘¢f@f¢11C@ Y0 the29,22), because, in the verses that Hippolytus has quoted (ft Kat/nzrmoi (Ref VII 30,4) does not look back to the verses that115,10-12), <<the bodies of the animals that we eat» are shown have been quoted frgm ft, 115 (Ref VII 29,14-25), b€CauS¢ ff-to be <<the dwelling-places of souls [i.e. eiaimones] that have been 11() has intervened (Ref VII 29,26)? On even the most super-Puni5h¢d”-. cial perusal of the text,‘ the reader cannot possibly confuse the

That 15 Preclsely th€ Polnt Whlch H1PP°lYtu5 “Peas 1mme' purpose for which Hippolytus has quoted the successive groupsd. 1 f H . h. . . . .iate y o owing is accusation that Marcion is <<teaching the of verses taken from out ft_ 115 (Ref VII 29,14—25) and thPurification: of Empedocles» (Ref VII 30,4). <<Yes (Yécp)», hesays, still addressing himself directly to Marcion, <<you are really i Wenwig Sldmcug two‘

= = »~ - ‘ ’ taro oii tot etxoto ,and truly, ((0% 0i7t1160J€) following ElT1peClOCl€S step by step H3123 Jtpvpgtwuxg {mews(Koitoi Tcoivtoc) when you teach your disciples to abstain from tiaiiaiaie the paiiieipie by a main verb (énéiievoe, <<you are following») and the maincertain foods [i.e. the flesh of animals], lest they devour any ""5 by =1 Subordinate Claust (5\5<i<"<8l€» <<Wh¢n Y°“_t@a¢h”)> b°th 1“ °’d@‘ ‘° k“P

- - l h d f d h G k d to brin out what I take to be thebody that is left over from a soul that has been punished by the £2 fgnanlggns Ctogtcxfepoiuépdmaeu guseei ea designate fgrbiddendemiurge.» That sentence is given by way explanation of the f0Ods, and specifically flesh meat, see Lampe, s.z/., A. 2. h (p. 305).d_The fggtribcharge that Marcion is secretly <<teaching the Kat/oezrmoi of g‘§¢9é<8IQ)6Pi¢7{<§ "P §LF°*:)1e&l1i$@I‘2‘§Lg;ep:L“g{‘:;c‘iIi‘$l>;gfiainféslbéeg

t , , , sou on - ‘<Empedocles» (Ref VII 30,4: tong Eiiiti-:5oi<7teot>g 7t0c\/Gocveig puzihei $2 d€m§urg€» (wxée {me we §nHtQ1)p'YQf) 1<gi<07t0t<;uév1]<;) repeats6L6éCGK(DV KO(9()Lp}LO{)Q); l1€1'1C€ tll explanatory particle the expression Hippolytus had used when giving the reason that Emlpedoelesladppg

. .> Twhich links the two sentences56. °d, 5°‘ Pmcillng "‘t,’S“ne“°?’ R4 YH 2922' aw?“ Yap “mm [ff mp? OC 6?Gmpqtq twv Qtpmv tot so9io|.iev0i qmxtov i<ei<07toioue\/oav _0u<ntr|pioi.

“Empedocles says that the bodies of the animals that We eat are the dwelling-places of5° Ref VII 30,4: sicéiievog yoip we éc7tn96)g icoitéi itéivtoi tobtcp [sc. $°uls [i.e. dnimones] that have been punished».

The prohibition and its reasons

i

l

I

l

1illif

I

1

1

1

1

_,__ __,, _ , .. _ _ ~77.” .. .._ . 7 7 7 77 r 7 "07---V 7-'_-7--~-7-~7~ -——»-————-——---—-»-—t-

112 DENIS O'BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: T1-IE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 113

quite different purpose for which he has quoted the continuous Mai-cion alone (Ref VII 29,5-25), then the conclusion would besequence of ten verses that is now our fr. 110 (Ref VII 29,26). that, in his attack on Marcion (Ref VII 29,3-25), Hippolytus’Hippolytus’ purpose, in quoting fr. 110, is to prepare the way verses are again taken from both poems, not only therefore fromfor widening his criticism to include Marcion’s fellow heretic, thc Peyilp/9)/5305 (as in his aecount of Love and Strife and the 61¢-

Prepon. The doctrine on which Hippolytus will choose to attack ments), but also from the Kat/]d7m0i (in his account of therhe rurameus Parr Proves re be> her any quesrreu er ruerary er exiled daimones). But the truth is that both argument and5¢Xt1al ?1h5tih¢I1C@ (85 With his quotation Of fl 115)» hut theu eounter-argument are worthless. The fact that some of the vers-portrayal of Christ as ‘intermediate’ between good and evil, in cs quoted by Hippolytus in these ehaptets of the Refutatio (VIIsuch a way (so Hippolytus alleges) that the Saviour is neither 29_31) W66 taksn from the Per,‘ P/1)/3'30; enn do nothing - butrrury man her rrury G°u- (I summarise rhe rrupueaueus or nothing — to show that the same was necessarily true of all theHippolytus’ denunciation or Prepon and Marcion in Ref VH 3 verses that Hippolytus has quoted. Whatever source or sources

The raer rhar rhe yersesfluereu (Ref Vrr 2926’ _rr' 110) In Hippolytus is drawing upon could perfectly well have quotedpreparation for Hippolytus onslaught on the Christology of 1,565 from Om or Othgr Gem or from both€ P >

;rePer/1] and Margreuf(R"]e Vrr 3_r)bhaVe lbeeu exrraered rrem rhe V Hence the utter vacuousness of Van der Ben’s contortedZ1 lg yseos can e o no conceiva e re evance for determining claim, (1975) 73: <<EV€n lflt ls Considered as a mac Comecturej

W Ct. er or not the Verses qilotecl from fr‘ .115 (Ref VH 29’14' ' ' most natural a riori to assume that the fra ments uotedit is p g q21?), in order to prove a quite different point, were taken from by Hippolytus in Chapter 29 [i,e_ Ref VII 29] are derived frome same oem.

-

P one and the same book». What cogency can there possiblyattach to Van der Ben’s ‘conjecture’ (even prescinding from itsauthor’s strange silence on Hippolytus’ reference to the

More confusing still: if we do attempt to draw some inference Kat/mrmoz)? The answer is: none. There is quite simply no rea-from Hippolytus’ quotation of fr. 110, then the result would son to suppose, a priori, that Hippolytus’ quotations have beentell against Primavesi’s conclusion. For in the course of his refu- taken all from the same poem, nor indeed any reason, a priori,tation of Marcion and Prepon (Ref VII 31), Hippolytus quotes to suppose that they have been taken from different poems. Theverses which, if we follow Diels’ edition, were taken originally question of the provenance of Hippolytus’ quotations Cannot hermm the Kilt/17’m0l' (Ref VII 31>4> ft 151)- If HiPP0lYtt1$ Can answered in the abstract. We need to look at the text. And thatquote verses taken both from the Peri 10/Jyseos (Ref VII 29.26, fr. Van der Ben has signally failed to do.110) and from the Kat/aezrmoi (Ref VII 31,4, fr. 131) in hisdenunciation of the Christology of Marcion and Prepon, then T/vepezmeloxwhy should he not have done the same in the two earlier parts ,

of his refutation? Hippolytus has quoted verses drawn from the HOW rheh ear‘ We Pesslhry eXPrsuh rhar Prrmayesr has been ledPeri p/ayseos in his account of Love and Strife and the elements rure Puruhg rerwaru an argurueur rhar rs no ergumeer at an?in preparation for his attack on Marcion’s cosmology (Ref VII HOW is it rhar We aPPear re _hear> rn Prrmavesls Werde29,4-13, esp. fr. 6). What is there to prevent him quoting vers- i.Dim00l0gi 10)» 35 it Were 3 ehstahr eehe or Van der Beuses taken from the Kat/Jezrmoi in preparation for his attack on the that the Context ih Whieh Verses rrem rr- 115 have beendietary and sexual abstinence that Marcion imposed on his fo1- §P0ted by Hippolytus affords no indication of their having beenlowers (Ref VII 29,14-25, fr. 115)? tiiken from the Kat/aarm0z'—a distant echo, despite the fact that

Argument and counter-argument

Indeed, if we were to take the verses quoted against der Ben is arguing for the inclusion of fr. 115 in the PerlMareion and Prepon (Ref VII 29,25-26 and VII 31,4, fr, 110 éyseos, whereas Primavesi is arguing for the opposite thesis,and fr. 131) as somehow a parallel for the verses quoted against iiimely the inclusion of those same verses in the Kat/aarmoz?

1 1

l

5

ti1»

1

t

i

1

l

E

l

1

i

t 7' ’"""' " "—"'""“””"""”" gr’ ----------~ - _ .___.___._,a_

- 1

1 14 DENI ’S O BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 115

thl;o‘rVél;lenpe2:a<3p>ilp€f ggrgliglegt St{)1;)§lE;)I1er(:1O€lSO not lie meriy Refutatro, Primavesi hadto try to take account of the evidence

€Vid€ntial Value that would Prima wie attack}: tgsgalnslt t e that przma zcte told against that thesis. The anomaly, the para-

ref€r€nC€ to the Kath . Wh , _rPPo Ytus dox, is that Primavesi has kept the argument that was originally

. ‘”?”"" at ls so Patadtnneal 15 that the employed to show that fr. 115 came from the Perz pk)/seas, evenargunaent that Pnnaavesr uePloY5 15 totany at ouus With the eon‘ I when he has abandoned that thesis and placed the verses insteadclusion that he has himself come round to on the position of fr. in the Context provided for them hy 1-hppelytust and therefore115. Primavesi now believes that fr. 115 was taken from the in the Kat/_;ay77¢0i_

Kat/aarmoi. Hippolytus, on any straightforward reading of histext, says exactly that. But Primavesi denies that we can neces- Primavesi} fygafn/lent 0f$,'mp[,'e,'msarily take Hippolytus to have said as much. How can that pos-sibly be so? Hippolytus’ evidence is the only direct evidence that With that Solution to the Paradox tn Prrrnavesrs treatrheht orwe have for the placing of verses from fr. 115. Primavesi dis- thPPolYtu5> other Plaees tn Prrrhavears Pages grow less oPatlue-counts that evidence, but nonetheless adopts the conclusion that For eXanaPre> tn reaehng Prnnavesrs treatment or the quotationit leads to, despite there being no other evidence of an equal or given hY Snhpherus in hrs eorhmehtary on the Physio (1 1849‘similar value57. 10, cfr. § III above), the reader may well have wondered why

How has that extraordinary state of affairs arisen? How is it Primavesi (Darm0”0rogr” 14 n- 39) otters an rnetuental reter'that Primavesi can think that the verses Hippolytus has quoted enee to ‘neee55ttYt trorh the Strasbourg PaPYru5 as Seernrhgh’ a

are in fact taken from the Kat/m;»m0;', but that when Hippolytus serious rival to Simplicius’ choice of verses (fr. 115,1-2), where

uses that very title on the following page of the Rélmtio (VII necessity appears far more prominently and dramatically. The

30,4), looking back very clearly to his eathet temarks (Ref VH answer is not, as one might have thought, the simple pleasure of29,21-22), he may refer, nonetheless, not to the verses he has quoting a Paraner (hitherto unknown) to EmP@d<>¢1@S’ use or thequoted, but to verses that he has not quoted, even though the Woru tneeessttytverses he has quoted do in fact come from the poem that he has In the text that was rnrtranY erreurateu> Prrnaavestts argu'namedas? ment at this point was that, if faced with a choice between the

l, ¢ >

The recipients of Primavesis earlier text will have no dif- neee55rtY anuueu to tn the Strasbourg PaPYru5 and the1

t

K 7

Culty in finding the solution to the paradox The argument that Necessity of fr. 115, Simplicius would not have chosen the lat-

Primavesi gives for rejecting Hippolytus’ evidence for the plaC_ ter fragment if it had appeared in the Kat/aarmoi. For Simplicius

ing of fr. 115 in the Km:/mrmoi was Originally put forward as to have preferred the quotation of fr. 115 over the verse record-' 2

part of Primavesi s earlier thesis, which placed those verses in the eu in the Strasbourg PaPYru5> Shhlanerus (So rt Was argued) rnustPerip/4)/seas. Adopting the distribution of fragments proposed by have tounu the two Verses tn the Same Poern> anu theretore inVan der Ben, but conscious, as Van der Ben seemingly is not of the Peri P/7)’5"0-*7

the allusion to the Kat/uzrmoi in the following chapter of the AunuttetnY> that argument rs rneornloauhle with Prrnaavearsnew thesis (cfr. Daimonologia 17): since Primavesi no longer

57 There are frequent references to ‘purication’ in other authors who quote believes that ft’ 115 was taken ttom the Peri pteot’ ht: can no£t1i;ite;1m(l}9i§£lZ 14-20 and ($1925) _439-440. But only Hippolytus longer believe that, in order to illustrate Aristotle’s text,

2,, 9.5 atW, ;,,,,:21;:::,:z;,;i::;P;;i;:,:fi;‘::,:%:rtziréatzartist $imP“¢i“S would hm fer himelfobligtd to Qand Marcovich’sedition'(Ref\‘/1130,4: toix; ’E;i1ce5oi<>téot>g [...] K<x9ap;ie{,e)_ Sec from the Peri p/9)/seas (and so the reference to necessity in the

ant’ thfstgtgotle t°n°‘”‘ng[t)h‘?" .Strasbourg papyrus) rather than a quotation from the Kat/oarmoi

e rimavesi ( azmonologza 5-6) agrees in treating Hippolytus’ words 115 1 2)_(Rqf VII 30,4: robs _’I~3_i§1r850i<7»é01>9 [--.1 Kueuptiooe) as a title, there is no need to t‘ ’ T . . .

pursue here the possibility that the expression refers, not to the title of a poem, but But! lf the earller argumlt 15 110 lOng¢r Viable» What Put‘to its tonttntt pose can there still be in proposing the reference to necessity in

1 16 DENIS UBRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 1 17V

the Strasbourg papyrus as a possible alternative candidate for sonal disciple, PQILISQHIQS. (fl? 11> and Whteh We khQW> thanksSimplicius’ choice of quotation? The answer is a very human again to Diogenes Laertius (VIM? VH1 60-61), W35 the P0@m_

and a very simple one. Here (Daimono/ogia 14 n. 59), as earli- entitled Peri p/9)/seas. If (for any of ‘those reasons) the Kat/aarmoeer (Daimonologia 10 n. 24), the drift of Primavesi’s argument were Somehow thought of as having precedence over the Perlruns counter to the conclusion that he in fact arrives at. The P/1)/5605, ClOeS Plutarch perhaps imply. that the Kat/Jezrmoe, as a

argument has been retained, but not the conclusion that the whole, acted as a. ‘prelude to the Ph1l05°PhY eQhta1hett th theargument was originally designed to support. Peri p/4)/seas? Gr is the implication that the Kat/aqrmoe would

have acted as a ‘prelude’ to the ‘philosophy’ contained in bothpoems?

V1. Plutarch and 1-lippolytus The evidence in Plutarch and Hippolytus does not allow us

to answer any of those perfectly legitimate questions. We havePlutarg/J} prelude’ to be content with what we can know from the texts, no matter

how frustrating it may be that Plutarch certainly, and perhapse he tetttth tQ t e e eat lg t Q 3}’ What ate the eQheht51Qh5 H1 olytus, knew more (in Plutarchs case, far more) than they

that We can ptoply draw from tht: Compltx’ but not Conttat hznttepchosen to tell us. For when Plutarch writes that the versesdictor eid fPl h H' l d ' " 7 ' 'Y» V ehee Q tttate > 1PPQ Yttts ah Q1thPhettt5' th he has quoted came <<as a prelude, at the beginning ofg2l1‘tlCL1l?1", what conclusion can we draw from the combined evi- Emp€dOC1e5> philosophy», 11¢ did not intend to be Obscure, noren“: O Plutarch and Hlppolytust even elliptical. He simply had no idea that his words would one

Plutarch says that verses he has quoted from what will be day bg mad, and anxiously rdread, by those who no longer pQ5-ourfr11S r db E d l' We e “ttttete ” Y mPe Qe e5 “as a Ptehttte> at the sessed Empedocles’ poems, and who could not know thereforeb u - f - - - - C 7

egthhthg QA hats Qh1tQ5QPhY” (De ext!” 17> Q07 e'd' Q Q quite what his elegant little aside was intended to convey.Eu1ce8oi<7mg ev ocpx "cg tpikoootpiocg 1cp00cvoc<pcov1'1oocg) 1 h ' f b f h cl f h~ - P utarc 1S writing, not or us, ut or t e au ience o is

Fl§Qm H1PPQtYtt15 (Ref VH QQ>3'4> ett- 29>t4'25)> We khQW that time, for a restricted circle of civilised and well-read /ittérateurst ose s ' f k f ' ’ame verses were in act ta en rom the Kdt/Jd7m0l. We can who Could presumably haw: read Empedoeles poems fer them-therefore know that verses from the Kat/mrmoz were counted by selvgs if thg had Wanmd to and who would an}/W3 in all like-

. . , . > YPhltitateh ‘<35 3 Ptehtde’ at the hegthhthg Qt EmPedQeteS PhttQ5' lihood haveyknown, at the very least, which of the two poemsOP 7”‘ Plutarch’s throw-away remark referred to.

W m k . D ’ 'e 3}’ Yeath tQ hQW thQte Qes Phttateh mean that the Thanks to 1-lippolytus, and perhaps therefore indirectly toKat/7‘”'m0l' Set tQtth EmPettQete5’ PhtlQ5QPhY> and that the Vets‘ Plutarch we do at least share that last item of knowled e. Like

_l 2 g

e5 he has t1ttQted eame 5QmeWhete at the hegthhthg Qt the PQemt the readers of Plutarch’s own day, we too, on any reasonableThat would b l ' l' ' ’ - ' ’ ' ’e 3 hQt tthhatttta tthP1eat1Qh Qt Pttttatehs WQtet5- reading of Hippolytus Refutatzo, know that Plutarchs versesB . . h . .

_ttt 1t 15 hQt t e QhlY meahthg PQ551hte- were taken not from the Perl physeos but from the Kat/mrmoz.DQe5 Phttateh PethaP5 5ttPPQ5e that the Ktharmol 5Qme' But such is, the state of modern scholarship that, when we know

how preceded the Peri /2 sea > Th' ld h b hZ’ J’ 5- 15 eou ave een eit er (1) so little, even that little is often lost to view.because the Kat/oarmoz were written earlier, or perhaps (ii)because the text of the Kat/Jarmoi was placed in front of the Peri 384163,} t/7651';pk)/seos in Plutarch’s personal copy of Empedocles’ works, or per- ,

haps (iii) because the address to the citizens of Acragas, in fr. A Sad eXamPle Qt Stteh eatetesshess Wth he tQtthtt tn Setheys112, which we know from Diogenes Laertius (Vitae V111 54) attemPt at teeQhSttt1etthg the PtQem Qt EmQedQete5 _P6” Pk)”came at the beginning of the Kat/oarmoi, was thought of as pre- te0_~‘> taking as ht_5 PQtht Qt ttepattttte Ptutatehs Wotds In the Deceding the more intimate poem, addressed to Empedocles’ per- exzlio coupled with passages from Lucretius De rerum mztum.

$

~ '=’.~ 1~<

.' " I I“. ’ T

V 7 l imwwn T T T" Twrvwwwin" '" {I8 it " ' " DENIS OBRIEN

EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 119

In Sedley’s attempted reconstruction, Empedocles’ proem logue (D6 Wrum "WW4 I 1-40), and In Partlcular Lucrruscontained two principal features. There was rst a scene where description of the triumphof Love over War (I 31-37), has beenLove and Strife are reconciled. Sedley bids us, (1998) 27: composed by way of imitation of Empedocles lost proem,

where there was portrayed (so Sedley would have us believe) aImagine now [...] an original Empedoclean proem in which similar picture of the reconciliation of Love and Strife.Aphrodite, as Love, is asked to propitiate Ares, as Strife. To meet the obvious objection that l10Wh€F@ 111 (ht? frag-

ments, nor even in the secondary sources, is there ever any allu-Thtt W35 5@C0ndlY 3 10115 5@CtiOI1 011 th d0¢ttiI1@ Of ttnsmi" sion to a reconciliation of Love and Strife, Sedley does eventual-gration and the evils of animal sacrice. Sedley happily tells us, [Y produce, in a footnote (Sedley [1998] 27 n. 98), two texts,(1998) 33> tl"1&tl1¢ has one from Eustathius and one from the Homeric allegorist,Heraclitusm.supplied Empedocles with the following fluent sequence of

topics: (a) Pythagoras’ achievement in recalling past incarna- Eustathiustions: an appeal to authority for the doctrine of transmigra-tion: (b) the evils of animal slaughter, illustrated by the The text from Eustathius, We are t0l(;l (Sedley [1998] 27 I1. 98),unwitting sacrifice of a deceased and transmigrated son: themoral importance of the doctrine of transmigration; (c) the may imply that Empedocles used the myth of the union oforigin and nature of transmigration itself. Aphrodite and Ares as an allegory for friendship; and since

there is no stage within the cosmic cycle itself atwhich LoveThose two themes, and not a little else, so Sedley would have us and Strife unite, the likeliest location for that P16“? Or Wm"believe, filled the 230 verses or so that preceded our fr. 17 and b°li$m Would 1nd@¢d be hls PY°@m~the verses recorded in the Strasbourg papyrus”.

Alas, the text that is quoted (1 298 [31O], 33-41) does not at all5m/lgyg Sou)“; say what Sedley would have us believe it says. Eustathius is com-

menting on the scene in the Odyssey where Aphrodite and AresWhat are the sources from which Sedley has garnered such vast am Caught in bed together by Hephaestus, who binds thed d ' h d d 1’an unexlxcre rrc ness an rirar - Th9 5CruPur°u5 reader may unha p couple in chains and calls on the other gods to come. .. P Y

. .ar rrrsr nd rr rrrrrrcurr r9 answer rhar rluesrrom 5° mwgre arr rh¢ and witness their disarray, before eventually releasing the pair att t h S dl ’ h ' ' ' 'ex s t at support e eys t esis, so vast the amount of detail the bghest Ofposeldon (Q61 \/111266-369), Eustathius does herethat proves to be only marginally relevant, i.f at all, to Sedley’s

attempted reconstruction of Empedocles’ proem.) - u .

For a great d€al of S6dleyS demonstratlon ls glvcn Over to 6° Even Lucretius’ alleged ‘borrowings’ from Empedocles cannot be taken onProvlng What has b€€n long known and rr€Clu€nrry 5rudr€d> trust from Sedley’s text. No attentive reader of Empedocles_will be persuaded b);_namely the extensive borrowings in the De rerum natum of Sedle céaill (139821 Z8l;lthC=l1t <<¥l11St_t°1§gr°té1mll. . ' t,in .meoces r. , ,1Words and PhraS€s tak€n from €dOCleS' The difficulty ls farrlriilmtirlerlrgtailérmeant Liicrirrius, that ii)ature returns all things to the elements (forthat, rr0m the r@C0gniti0I1 (Jr th@5@ multiple b0I'l'0VVing5> th@r¢ is, Lucretius, the atoms) from which she has brought themjorth, De rerum natural 56-' ’ ' '; d ‘ r t au ret alat ue/ uove ea em rursum natum peremptalrl -Sedleys Stat€ment- of hls rh€Sls, a quanrum l€ap -to ihe SuppO— Z0/Z; €<frZiiiliv]l11ricZlirilia£t}irfe Zr-iatesr all thinqgs, Znd increases them and fosters them,Sltlon that the long lnvocarlon to V€nus In Lucretlus Own pro’ and into which nature too dissolves them again at their perishing», in Bailey’s trans-

lation). The attentive reader of Lucretius must even beware of Sedley’s translationsfrom the Latin. In the couplet quoted, eadem is taken (wrongly) as a feminine singu-

59 Sedley (1998) 29. The essentials of Sedley’s attempted reconstruction, but g’ lar (<<that same nature») when Sedley'rst quotes the verses, (1998) 28, and (correct-necessarily without reference to the Strasbourg papyrus, at the time not yet identified, ly) as a neuter plural (<<those same things»), when he h.a$ OCCQSIOH t0 quote Fhi’ San“:b fare to e ound in Sedley (1989).verse on almost the final page of his book (p. 201).

-_.__..___-_. W.__._.-.s___......._.____a__a..__.._.__c_._,.___...__q.__-W?_-_sa___. __., V W. __ O ~_____w~_.___W__.a__».-____ .. ~,_ , “»?»~-» -V O» ~ ~ a~~»~»e-»~~- Maw few-O -W-O ----O-~v~_-7"» . . _.

120 DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDQQLES, THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS .121

introduce Empedocles’ Love and Strife, but Love is not made Homer’s tale, there is therefore no identication of Empedocles’out to be the equivalent of Homer’s Aphrodite, nor is Strife the Love with the HQmcriC Aphrodite, nor of Empedocles’ Strifeequivalent Of HO1Tl@f,5 Al"@$- with Ares, as would be required by the use that Sedley hopes to

In Eustathius’ allegorical interpretation of Homer, ; make of the passage.Empedocles’ Love is introduced as a higher power, a power that i Qn the contrary, in Eustathius’ account, Aphrodite andf8VOL1f5 I116 COHlL1l1<IIiOI1 Of HOm@f,5 APhfOdiF¢ and Af@5- “A I Ares, taken from the text of the Odyssey, retain each his or hersymbol of Love li.e. of Empedocles’ Lovel», so Eustathius writes, individual persona. Eustathius’ Love and Strife, taken from<<is the union of Aphrodite and Ares doing whatever things are I Empedocles, are introduced as two additional powers.dear to them la prudish euphemism for sexual intercourse] >> , Empedocles’ Love, in Eustathius’ allegory, is the force whichtg tpikiotg |.iév oi')|i[3o7tov, Ig ’A(pp05i'm§ KOLI TOT) I brings the two lovers together. Empedocles’ Strife is the power’Apeog uiig noiobvtwv iimep ocinoig cpikoi). i which releases the two gods from their chains. Eustathius’ Strife,

A similarly exalted role has to be given to Empedocles’ far from being identified with Ares, Aphrodite’s lover, is fusedStrife, who is therefore presented as the force which undoes the with the person of Hephaestus, Aphrodite’s angry and vengefulunion effected by Love. <<A symbol of Strife», writes Eustathius, husband.<<is the freeing of the two lovers, a freeing effected by heat» (... No-one who reads Eustathius’ text can therefore possiblyTOT) 5% VElKO1)Q lsc. 6i)|.LBo7tov], é1< Bsppof) MXSLQ (xi)'t€)v believe Sedley’s claim that the union of Aphrodite and Ares in[sc. Tg °A(pp05iT1]g KO(l TOT) ”Ap8og]). the Odyssey is presented by Eustathius as a union of Love and

The connection of ideas (Strife identified with heat) mayA Strife in Empedocles’ philosophy. Sedley’s claim cannot even be

be disconcerting to the modern reader. The rationale, in so far shot down since it never even gets off the ground.as there is one, lies in the lines immediately following, where the<<heat>> which <<looses» is identified with Homer’s Hephaestus, Hemclitus

' 't' H h ts ho is re aileduonb Poseidonto . . ... ,igsisé 15“: illvgeslgvejlg ( Odp ‘EH1 342359?’ and Sinai Heraclitus might initially seem to shed a ray of hope on Sedleys

Hephaestus, as a smith, is naturally associated with fire. theS1S'1.FOr Commmnng Oil th€. Same PaSS?‘ge of th€ O6!)/“.63/’

(Readers of Eustathius, or indeed of other allegorists, soon come Herac Hus 51065 at least . Identify Aphrodite and Ams withto take for granted the ebb and flow of these shifting and mul- Empedocles LOW and Smfe62'tiple identifications and associations.) Hephaestus/the fire who

. . . "cot yocp Zixekixoc Soyiioitoc icoii tv ’Eu1cs8oi<7teiovhqs boupd thp two lovers is also the force which will eventually Yvdmnv gomgv [SC Hom] (M6 wmwv [SC th€ tale ofre ease t em ' Ares and Aphrodite] Bsociofw, "Apr|v uév ovouétootg to

In typical allegorical manner, Eustathius has here combined WTKOQ’ mv 59 =A(ppO5i.mV (PLMON (Allegon-46 69,8)

Phil050PhY with PhY5lC5- The Power Qf Strif@> in lO08iI1g th€ “N0 Homere semble confirmer ici les idées de l’e'cole sicilienne etlOV€f$> is id@I1Yi@d With h¢3t- HOHI, in its turn» i5 la théorie d’Empédocle, en nommant Ares la discorde, etidentified/associated (in an allegorical context, that distinction Aphrodite l’amitié63.

hardly has meaning) with Hephaestus. In Eustathius’ reading of

61 The double association of Strife with Hephaestus and with fire is mediatedby the use of the word Mmtg, in the text quoted above from Eustathius TOT) 33$ 62 l—lQm_, Od_ VIII 266-369, Heraelie, Al/@g_ 69,1-11_ Fmm Plato Qnwafds’veiicovg lsc. oi’>iiBo7t0vl, 1'] éic Gspiiof) M'>otg oiintiiv lsc. tg ’Aq>po5i1ng icoci tof) Resp. III, 390 c 6-7, the text of the Odyssey had become a locus classicus of Homer’s’Ap£0g]). Aoov is the word of command issued by Poseidon to Hephaestus in the alleged lmPl@ty_

FOXE Of Ih O61}/ff?) (VH1 347» 56¢ 3150 V- 3601 Til) 5) l$6- the guilty COUPIOI éTl7$l $14 63 Here and throughout, I quote Buferes text and translation, in the Budé col-Seouoio 7ti>6ev...). lection (1962).

122 DENIS OBRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO PQEMS 125

Heraclitus does Wan Spaak of LOW and Strife bang recon’ Qnce again therefore the text that Sedley has quoted yields

Ciltd (Allegomlft 69>9)- Bub Once again» We have OnlY YO mad ‘Th6 no evidence at all in favour of the supposition that Empedocles’

text to See that an)’ SUPPOYY it mighr 5¢@m Y0 bring Y0 5¢dl¢y’s Love and Strife were ever presented by Empedocles as ‘recon-thesis is entirely chimerical. For Heraclitus does not tell us that eilr-id’, Still less is there any rational ground for supposing that a

the ‘reconciliation’ of the two gods found a place in Empedocles’ reconciliation of Love and Strife in Empedocles’ proem can havephilosophy. On the contrary, the reconciliation of Aphrodite been the prototype for what we read today in Lucretius.and Ares (and therefore of Empedocles’ Love and Strife) isspecifically ascribed to Homer alone. Mars in the arms ofVenus?

A A The very image of Mars lying in the lap of Venus (as portrayedtobtong oiiv Stsotnxotocg év écpgm nocpeioyowsvc/ounpog éK Tg Ram“ (pmovgmiag gig MOW dpuoviow in B0tticelli’s famous painting), which Sedley supposes found a

](1p\;(x}lé\)01)g_ (Aggegm-ae 69,9) precedent in Empedocles proem, where it would have been

Ces deux principes opposes [$0. Aphrodite and Ares, identi— dtisigntd “as a Plea to human beings to let that Pftactttul t€n'ed respectively with Empedoeles’ Love and 5trif¢], Séparés dencies calm and suppress the bloodthirsty side of their nature»

a l’origine, Homere nous les montre, apres leur vieille inimi— (Sedley [1998] 27), goes against what little we l<nOW Of l1OW

tié, s’unissant dans un parfait accord. Empedocles envisaged the interplay of Love and Strife in the

human frame.Homer, here as elsewhere, is Heraclitus’ philosophical For we are not told that Love is somehow able to pacify

hero“. The refutation of the charge of scandal and impiety Strife,-as though she were somehow able to suppress the evil

brought against the passage in the Odyssey is put forward, as it inclinations inspired by Strife. On the contrary, what we hear inhas to be in the light of Heraclitus’ own convictions, as I-lomer’s ft 35,9-13 i8 that LOW! di5Pl%1C¢$ Sffiffl For Whin L0‘/fl ¢XI¢11d5

personal achievement — an achievement brought to light by Ther power in the cosmos, there is not the slightest sign that she

Heraclitus’ powers of allegorisation. In the context provided by QUOWS Stfif I0 stay, 50 I0 5P¢k qL1i¢5C¢I1B by h¢f $i<l¢ (more OI

Eustathius, Empedocles’ Love and Strife furnish part of the ” 165$ I116 image C0I1lUY@d UP in LL1CY¢YiL1$t Pf0¢m> I 3157)-problem (the opposition of two gods)_ Homer alone prOv1d¢S 1 Instead, Love forces Strife to leave the bodies of mortal crea-

the solution to the problem (the reeoneiliation of the tWO)65_ tures, so that she herself may take up the place that Strife has

64 There is a useful account of Heraclitus’ aims and methods by Buffiere, in his agcount of Venus and Mars in the opening verses of the Deintroduction to the Budé edition of the /lllegories

\J.1\

If /

I 3'.

is

’§>.

rid

4 > J

5

vacated (see especially fr. 35,12-13: oooov 5’ ociév

i)1csi<1cpo9éot [$6. Strife], tooov ociév émjet mocppcov

<I>i7t0tm:0g écusurpéog o’qi[3potog opu).If there were any Empedoclean background to Lucretius

65 For Heraclitus’ hero-worship of Homer; see, for example, Alleg. 22,2: <<Les Terttm natura’ the point would more hkely b€’ not that Lutiretlusnotions de physique sur les éléments, Homere en est l’initiateur et Homere seul; il estle inaitre de tous ceux qui sont venus apres lui et l’inspirateur de routes les theoriesqu ils ont semblé découvrir». If Heraclitus had thought that Empedocles originated

U

:“t;*t2:%:‘a9

imitates verses from Empedocles where Love and Strife are

shown as reconciled, but that, on the contrary, Lucretius’ own

the reconciliation of Love and Strife, he would have had no inhibition in saying so. dqaiction of Ares (SH as tamed hrodittt edoclestThe intuition would still have redounded to Homers glory, ‘since Empedocles would W85 intended as 9. Slleflt rebuke t0 Empedocles, 215

simply have taken the idea from Homer So it was, Heraclitus claimed for the dis- l , I I I I I I

covery of the four elements. <<Les plus grands philosophes ont porté le nombre des élé- Luctettus ttttntttl Ot the Otstbtttty that thettt .15 ttt Work tn thtments au chiffre parfait de quatre» (A/leg. 22,13). But it was Homer who had shown C05mO5 any ltbrce of avll other than the gvlls that men andthem the way (fl/leg. 23-24). ~ There can therefore (I repeat)_ be no reason to suppose Wgmgn inict upon themselves and Qagh Qthef their f()()li$hthat the reconciliation of Aphrodite and Ares, which Hetaclitus attributes specifically T -

to Homer, has been taken from Empedocles. If it had been, Heraclitus would have Subsetvlenctt to the ties of t€ligiOn' For though so totally at Oddshad no mason not Y0 53>’ 50- in (almost) every other way, Lucretius/Epicurus and Plato would

J

1?: .

- - - -- - W — W -— ~-~—~—~w~—---- ————-~--~-~-~» - —~— ---'- - » - » -- - I -- -~ .» -- - - V ~ - YH---~-W ~--"Y-,_Ww.._.M___. .t_._._....w ..__.___

124 DENIS O’BRIEN ' EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 125

have been at one in their conviction that there is no divine force Mamion is <<f¢8lChing the Kat/aezrmoi of Empedocles»67_ Sedlgy

of evil at large in the cosmos, and that Empedocles’ philosophy 1‘ does not quote the earlier passage (Ref VII 29,14-25), Wheremust be corrected on that point“. 7. Hippolytus claims to have substantiated Empedocles’ belief by

Sedley, (1998) 27, does seem for a moment to envisage quotation of verses from fr. 115. Inevitably, therefore, Sedleysuch an interpretation, but fails to see that so general a critique shows no signs of any awareness that Hippolytus’ reference toof Empedocles (if that is the underlying message conveyed in the Purzeeztions (at Ref VII 30,3-4) looks back directly toLucretius’ prologue) would, of its very nature, be directed Hippolytus own quotation of those verses (at Ref VII 29,14—25).against Empedocles’ philosophy as a whole and would not nec- All told, therefore, Sedley’s error is hardly more pardonableessarily carry any implication that the feature of Empedocles’ than the error already noted in Van der Ben’s handling of thesystem which Lucretius repudiates (the influence of an evil god evidence from Plutarch and Hippolytus. Sedley and Van derof Strife) had been put forward specifically in Empedocles’ lost Y Ben both take Plutarch’s words to refer to the Peri p/ayseos. Butproem. both writers quote Hippolytus’ evidence only in part. Van der

Ben, (1975) 20-21, fails to quote I-Iippolytus’ allusion to theSedle)/3 placing of 115 Kat/aarmai (Ref VII 30,4), and fails therefore to associate

. , . Hippolytus’ quotation of verses from fr. 115 with that poem.The second feature in Sedle s attem ted reconstruction of - > - - >Em edocks, h Y h P f h F L _ , Sedley does quote Hippolytus condemnation of Marcionsim P . d li Mas O.gO t € Wily 1:. I ifgrst freulufi dietary and sexual restrictions, taken from <<the Kat/Jarmoz of

passlom P ea to nmlus’ not to et lmse 6 am OOZ e Em edocles» (Ref VII 30 4) But he fails to note that in theby the theories of reincarnation put forward so Lucretius tells P ' . ’ ' . , . ’

. . ’_ context of the Re teztzo, Marcions condemnation of meat andhim b Ennius (De rerum mztu al 102 135) k b S dl - t ~ - > -19’98y 1 2 d 1: 5 ’1Sta en Y 6 ey marriage (Ref VII 30 5-4» looks back to Hippolytus earlier([ ] 3 -3 ) as evi ence t at the theory of reincarnation account of ’> ' -

. . pedocles philosophy (Ref VII 29,14-25), andgiggd by Empedodes must hkewlse have ban Part of a specifically to his quotation of verses from fr. 115.

. . . M Sedleys attempted incorporation of verses from fr. 115 inin itSTi;:‘f arrg;.u.Tlle1t1t1tSe]glS fe€ble €nO?1gh'The Wldgnce <1“<?‘¢d the proem of the Peri p/7)/seas cannot be maintained, once we

. Ou al S O Stan up to e.V€n € mOS_t cursory €Xamma' have read the testimony of Hippolytus in its entirety (Ref VIItion. For the account of transmigration which Sedley seeks to 29 nd 30)place in Empedocles’ proem proves to be none other than the a

description of the daimon forced to tread <<the bitter aths of - -

life», as recounted in fr. 115. As proof that those verges were Smiley and Primavesie taken from the prologue to the Peri p/vyseos, Sedley relies on Although Sedley and Primavesi have adopted opposite conclu-

Plutarch’s statement that the verses acted as <<a proem, at the Sions on the placing of fr. 115 (Sedley opting for the Peri play-beginning of Empedocles’ philosophy» (De exilio, 17, 607 c-d), . 1*: seas, Primavesi for the Kat/aezrmoz), those two scholars are

an expression which Sedley ([1998] 8-10), like Van der Ben Q1 nonetheless, in a curious way, companions in error. Primavesi([1975] 16-26), takes to refer to the Peri iv/ayseos. might at rst seem to have the advantage over Sedley, in that he

Sedley does refer, shortly before this ([1998] 7), to does at least refer to both chapters of the Refutatio (VII 29 andI-Iippolytus. But, quite extraordinarily, he refers only to the later V I 30, Daimonologia 10-11). But the advantage proves to be short-passage of the Refuteztio (VII 30,3-4), to I-Iippolytus’ accusation i lived. Anyone who relied on Primavesi’s account of Hippolytusthat, in preaching abstinence from meat and from marriage, would be hopelessly ill-equipped to convict Sedley of error. For

_ r

66 For Plato’s criticism of Empedocles’ account of evil, see O’Brien (1997) and , 67 S¢Cl1¢Y, (1998) 7 11- 29, f¢f€rS to Rqf-I VII 30,5-4, apparently C0I1F@I1fiI1g him-(1999). self with the scrap of text added in Diels-Kranz to the preamble to fr. 110.

126 DENI5 GBRIEN EMPIZIDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 127

despite having tetetted t0 hmh Chaptfffs Of 17116 Rettatio, brings essentially the same charge against Empedocles in thePrimavesi nonetheless fails to acknowledge the obvious connec- Metaphysics, our fr. 3069?

tten between them (<3fY- Dim0”0[0gi4 10 11- 24)- These verses, so Aristotle tells us, described the change-overOn Primavesi’s presentation of the evidence, the testimony from rest to movement’/0. It seems very likely that they are there-

of Plutarch in the De exi/io cannot therefore be complemented fore related to the description of the cosmic cycle given in fr.by the evidence of the Refutatio, with the result that, were we to 17, and perhaps more especially to the description, in that frag-rest content with Primavesi’s account of the matter, Sedley’s the- ment, of <<the time that comes round in a circle» (fr. 17.29:sis would still be left to stand as a monument to misguided nepinkouévoio Xpovoio). For we can well suppose that thescholarly fantasy. For if Hippolytus has not told us that the vers- allusions to <<time» in the two fragments (fr. 17,29 and fr. 30.3)es quoted by Plutarch in the De exilio were taken from the 5 are successive and complementary. The generic description ofKtlt/stlrmoi, then why should advocates of Sedley’s thesis not 1 the <<time» that <<comes round in a circle» in the earlier fragmentcontinue to suppose that Plutarch’s fragment came instead from (£11 17291 7t3P17T7~0l~léV0\0 XPéV019) is F¢P1<3¢d> lffif in fhfithe proem to the Peri physeos, and that the verses of fr. 115 did , poem, by a specific time, the <<time» that <<is coming to an end»

therefore fill the gap that seems to beckon so invitingly from the (fl 30-31 T$7~$l0H~‘/3V0I0 XPéV0l0)- If that linking Of V@f$¢$ andlost columns of the Strasbourg papyrus? ideas is correct, then fr. 30 will have been taken, as were the

Primavesi’s blurred presentation of the evidence is not the Verses Qt tn 17> from the Peri P57550571-

result of chance. In the published version of Primavesi’s Ah told» thetetete> We ma)’ eehehttte th‘1t> at this momentDaimonologia we can still make out, almost as in a palimpsest, Ot his eemmehtaty eh the P/’)’~tl.e5> Shhphetus has eemhtheetthe author’s earlier adoption of the thesis that, in all its hopeless Vetses taken ttom the Peri P/775605 With Vetses taheh hem theinadequacy, still stares at us from the pages of Sedley’s Lucretius l_(at/mfmol-' The ehehge't’Yet ttem test to movement “When the '

and the transformation ofGree/e wisdom, — the belief, despite the thhe Comes te ah ehd”> th tt- 50> has heeh in ah Ptehahtht)’evidence in Hippolytus, that fr. 115 came from not from the taken from the Peri physeos. The tale of the wandering daimon,K4;/mrmoi, but from the Peri 10h)/Se0S. in fr. 115,1-2, we know from Hippolytus has been taken from

f the Katharmoi. What lessons can we draw from that juxtaposi-tion of verses taken from two different poems? Before answering

\/11_ Hippolytus and Simplicius that question, we need to look more closely at the wording ofthe two fragments.

Simp/icius’juxtaposition ofagments om the two poems; .

Let us turn to the relation between Hippolytus and Simplicius.Thanks to the information contained in Hippolytus Reitatzo, Q 69 Simplicn Pym 1184,14_16_ Arm’ Met B 4, 1000 b 12_17_

we know that the two verses describing necessity (fr. 115,1-2), Ij_ 7° Arisr-. Met. B 4. 1000 a 18-b 21, esp- =1 26-29 and b 9-17-used to illustrate AriStOtl€>S Charg€ that 71 Simplicius quotesfr. 17 as taken‘ from the <<first book of the Physiha», Phys.

-1’ 157 27 A similar expression, also referring to cosmic change, occurs in fr 26 1') - . . . . . , .

EIT1p€(1OCl€S COSITIIC 21ltCfI121[1OI1 Of lT1OV€II1€I1I and I‘€St W38 l€1Cl(- napinkousvoio i<1>i<7toi0. This expression has again almost certainly been takening in a cause, have been taken from the Purifications68. What tmghe irstotgk RZ"iP€?_')Z@0I- 3%¢YS1}i$ qlL}°FaIi°n Ott 117 as Faks tmmf

1.! t e << irst oo o t e sz a» s. ,' , im icius asses to t e uotation othtzn of the three V€rs€S that eccomptthy them> and that ate hone fr. 21 with the words, P/iys. 159,10):11: 1t7\.siovoi 65 éikkoipsindav {tITEéL'Y?31. éKéL6TOD

Qther than the V@I'5€S that Af1SfOIl€ l1lI1’1S6lfl’121S qU.Ot€(i_, When he "ctbv sipnuévtov [so the elements] ‘Cov )(0Lp0ii<'Cp0c. After quoting verses from thatsame sequence (fr. 21) earlier in his commentary, Phys. 33,8-17, he passes to the quo-tation of fr. Z6 with the remark, Phys. 33.18: Koii éxiyov 5?; nposkdav qmoiv.From all of which we can conclude that fr. 26 came later than fr. 17, but presum-

_ ably still from the first book of the Physiha (despite the T£7t8i.0\/Oi 6O\.7t0i of Phys.68 Simplic., Phys. 11.84,9-10. Hippo1., Rtf VII 30,4. 159,1())_

..ss_,,us.

».~

ll ‘

T.

.i\

__ _

128 DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES; THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 129

The time that ' ' ', ,

<< zs commg to an end» in 30as the time comes to an end (tekstouevoto Xpovoto) that has

The three verses quoted by Aristotle and by Simplicius (fr. 30) been xed by a broad Oath tntrwcéog nolpgermrowou épltou) tinrun as follows; -r . exchange for them» (ogotv GQLOLBOLTOQ), i.e. in exchange for the

honours of Strife (ogotv=ttiiécg).

etiimp éngi “gym vgfmg évmpayaaoolv aepaaoon Primavesi (Daimonologia 49-50) seeks to call that interpre_

ég ttuécg t’ étvopooeg tgxgtguévolq Xpévow, tation into question. Despite keeping the limbs of Strife as the

5% 6<PW émototiog Tdtottéog notpgxfptqtql 6p](Q1)___72 reference of it-;vi|.L|.i£7té£o6iv in the opening line of the frag-

Thfi V6868 have been frequently misinterpr¢t@d_Th¢<<]imb5,, of noun (otptv) as referring jointly to Love and Strife .

ment, he seeks to return to the earlier interpretation of the pro-74

the first verse (éviuuekéeootv) have been thought to be the GrttrhrhatteahY> that reathhg or the tragrheht is ParhhthY ether‘limbs of the Sphere. That interpretation is awkward enough in raht- HOW eah We reter the Prehetth ttttpw) to two hotths thatitself. How can the Sphere, where all the elements have been de hot aPPear> eXeePt hY remote rrhPheatr°h= rh the two Pre‘

breught into unity by Love, have <<limb5»? It is even more aw-k, ceding verses, while ignoring the plural noun that does appear,

ward in the context. Before the Sphere was formed, Strife was th the suhorthhate Clause Qt the Verse hhrhethateh’ Preeethhgdriven to the <<outermost bounds of the circle» (fr. 35,10). How (nués)?then can Strife have found a place within the limbs of the Sphereeven before the Sphere. has been disrupted? The answer to those The two ttmet

two quttsnons ls to She In the expresslon svllittsttégcotv’ hot the A Primavesi’s understanding of the fragment is also logicallylimbs of the Sphere but the limbs of Strife h' lf. S 'f ‘

’ hhst th e grew it unsound. For the reason Primavesi advances to justify his returngreat in his limbs’ (uéyot is to be taken as art of the redicate)before his disruption of the Sphere

73 P P to the earlier communis opinio (oqatv referring to Love and

Th h 1 . , ', , 1 Strife) shows that he_ has failed to follow the sequence ofat error t at wou d see in evi eup ttgsccw the hmhs of thou ht. Primavesi claims that the correction proposed of the

the S here led to error in the unde t ' g - - - - - -

P rs ending of the ptohotth communzs opznzo (with o(ptv referring to the <<honours>> of Strife)otptv in the third verse of the fragment. So lon as the resenceof the Sphere, and therefore of Love, was thougtht to bepim lied leads to an impossible mvttsal of thg timlf Sectuenciinghfh frag‘

P ment to the absurd re uirement t at t e <<time>> ixe or t ein the reference to the <<limbs f th ' ’ . q .

» O 6 Openmg Vast’ the honours of Strife should begin and end at one and the sameantecedent of the pronoun was taken to be none other than thetwo cosmic gods, Love and Strife. Once the reference to Love has

‘il-

~ 4

moment. <<While the honours of Strife», he writes, <<are barely at" '

cc >>

their beginning, the time that has been fixed for them isbeen removed from the immediate context, that interpretation is alraad at an and»7sno longer viable. The antecedent will, instead, most naturally be ti Y I

taken to be the plural noun, tiuocg, of the verse preceding. Strifel€21pt up t0 S€lZ€ l'1OI1OL11"S 'CL}.l0(Q Ti 0CVOpO’l)G€), 218 SOOH 74 One would hardly guess as much from Primavesi’s translation of the three

verses, Dtzimonologztz 50: <<Ma quando Contesa fu nutrita nelle sue membra/e fuinnalzata agli onori al compiersi del tempo,/che ad essi come scambio vicendevole da

7; Thgm isa differm f . . , un grande giuramento fu assegnato...» Picking his way through those words, in

. S. 1. . Pb Ct O YFa‘hP&,"‘ the\h_t5t Vetse Qt the Setluehee othtotp 3Tt€l t Italian, the average reader might well continue to take onorz as the antecedent of essz,

in imp icius ( yr. 1184,14), 000» 01:8 51] in Aristotle (Met B 4 1000 b 14 ’ 1‘ ' ’ ' ' ' '

Dials (1901) ad [of retains évi gxéscmv h H. d d. 11 )- and therefore as the honours of Strife . But Primavesi goes out of his way to repudi-

uscriét of Simplicigs Elsewheréttt nd h ’ t e 5Pe thg tetfot ti: m. 6 oldest malt ~ 1 ate that meaning in a footnote, Dtzimonologia 50 n. 147, while the Placing of the

two Words aratéd (évi gkggsxv) tbttmitt Cowehttohia Seblrhgt Where the '_ footnote reference can only lead one to infer that the antecedent of 6<PW is indeed

Sioon (avq) hastiin tic: be ronoulqcéldvgs git ;:;:.On tsy a t of the PreP0- a taken to be, once more, <<Amore e Contesa». One can but wonder at the reasons for

75 - y P - - g - lgm la; . this strange retour en tzrriére(‘NOl?L£)f5(5l)et&llS, and references to earlier interpretations, see O Brien (1969) 274- .75 primavasi, Dal-moniologl-a 50 n_ 147: “mantra ouasti onori [i_a_ tha honours

.1

\

of Strife] in B 30 sono appena all’inizio, il tempo stabilito “per loro” e gia alla fine».

130 DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES; THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 131

The author of those weasel words has failed to reect on it 6(PtV- Th6 time that i5 <<¢t>mi11g to ah end” tteatetellevete) iswhat is implied by the adjective éqioioitog, <<Fixed» (‘stabilittf .. the time that has been xed by a broad oath in exchange forin the Italian) represents only 1cotpe)t1’i7tet-tett, not otuotigotfoo Z ? <<th€m» (6(|)LV). What is the antecedent of the pronoun?In the fragment, the time that is <<fixed» (nqpekxqtqt) is hot Certainly not the two recipients of the successive times (Lovethe time that has been <<fixed» for Strife’s enjoyment of his hon- i and Strife)- Love and Stttte eaeh teeeh’e5> 5t1eee55h’elY> Ohe OtOUIS, hut the time that has been <<fixed in exc/9;1ngg>> for $ttife’s ‘1 other of two different times. Equally certainly, the time that <<is

hOnOurS (<5tpOLBOtT0g [...] Tt0cp£7L1'17t0c’toii), and therefore the 1 3. coming to an end» cannot be given <<in exchange» for what wetime that must be yielded up before Strife’s honours can begin. . f may 5ttPPe5e te he the hehettts et LeVe- Pet th that ease the

Simply to mark that difference (<<fixed», <<fixed in I <<time» that is given <<in exchange» (the time that is coming to anexc/aiznge»), let us suppose that there are two times, A and B, S end» the time Qt the Sphete) Wetlld he given in exehahge totwhich succeed each other in that order. Let us further define B '1‘ it$elt- Oh the eehttatY> the time that is how “eehhhg to ah ehd”as the time that is <<fixed» for Strife’s enjoyment of his honours, ti tteatetettevete) is the time that h%15 already heeh given t0 LOW,A the time that has been <<fixed in exc/aange» for the honours that th exehahge tot the “hehetlts” that will "Ow he Stveh te StttteStrife will enjoy. The two times A and B are clearly not the same. l The ahteeeeleht Qt (“PW eahhet thetetete hut he the hen’0n the contrary, we may well suppose (indeed, if the times ate ours that belong to Strife. The time that is said to be <<in

successive, we have to suppose) that it is only when time A has .- @X¢hang@>> (<’>iiw1l3<>tt<>;). the time that “is Coming to ah ehtl”come to an end that time B can begin. Strife has to wait until ('te7tetelle\’et9)> is the time that belongs te LeVe- That tithe hasthe time <<fixed in exc/umge» for his honours (time A) has come heeh given “th eXehahge tet h0I10t1t$>> (t7tPW l---l fwteottos,to an end, before he can enter upon the enjoyment of his hon- °'tPt\’=ttttetQ) that ate YIOW btginningi the hehehts that ate dueours, throughout the time that has been <<fixed» for them (time B). it to Stttte '

~ A broad oath has xed successive times, each one given <<in

T/we time that is given tin exc/Jimge» exchange» for the other. As soon as Love has had her <<time», i.e.

In th 1. h f h _ 1 f as soon as the time comes to an end that has been fixed for thee lg t O t at Stthp est O Shhlale th5t1hetteh5> let he tetttth duration of the Sphere, Strife who until then had been forced

te the language et the ttagtheht Ohe ththg 15 ethethettee. 1t 1t 15 11 to bide his time outside the <<extreme limits of the circle» (cfr. fr.given “tn eXell:l‘ange” tot Someththg elsee - th out eehteXt> What 15 F 35,10), rushes forward to seize his honours, the honours that heglveh ‘ah exe ahge” 15 a thhe- Ohe ttme> 5° it is thapheeh ts gtveh can now claim because the time that he has been forced to yieldlh exehahge tot ahetheh The two “thhes” ate eleatl)’ 5tteee55h’e- to Love for her honours has come to an end.gee tlfme that ts eehhhg te ah ehtl (eth tettetelieveteh We I To confuse the two sets of ‘honours’, the honours that onenow rom Aristotle, is the time that has belonged to Love, the may presume Love to have enjoyed during the time that is new

time therefore of unity and of rest, when Love, as Aristotle 4' thawing to its elose (efh tejtetouevoto Xoovoio), and the hon-chooses to express it at this moment, has <<destroyed» the many outs of Strife, the hooouts that ate how about to begin, is toe ' 77 ' ° ' ° 1 , .

in Otdet to establish theehe ' It 15 that thhe= the thhe that 15 misunderstand the whole meaning of these three verses, the pur-coming to an. end, tl1€_tlfI1€ that has been given over to Love, 3 pose for Whieh they have heeu quoted by Atistotle in the

that ls here geld to be ‘eh exehahge” (°tltOthettet5)- Metaphysics, and the reason why they are repeated by SimpliciusThe second term in the exchange (what it is that the time in his eommeutaty on the P/;),s,';s_

is given in exchange for) is expressed by the pronoun in the dative,

I T/ae arusting» dizimon of I157° See again O’Brien (1969) 274-27577 Arise) MEL B 4, 1000 b 9_17_ F0} Aristotlus little paradox (LOW dwroys From fr. 30 let us turn to fr. 115. Here too. the temporal impli:

the many to make the one), see O’Bnen (1981) 59-60, 1 cations of the sequence of the events described in Empedocles

\

l.'1

__..-. ________._. ._ K. W .. W . ______,,___,__,__ . . -,__,.,_,__,,,.,_,......_..,_, . .. .,_w ‘. , _ . . _ . _. , . _, ,.,.._.______,._

1 ,

32 DENI5 O BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 133

r

verses have, I believe, been misunderstood. The concluding 1 (killing animals and eating them, the equivalent, forwords of fr. 115, veiicet iiocivouévq) rcioovog, which I have 1 ii Empedocles, of our killing each other, even our nearest and dear-

translated as “trusting to raving StFif¢>> (in the opening para- est, and eating them, as recounted so piteously in fragments 136graph of my essay), obviously arouse false expectations in some i and 137) arises from our ‘reliance’ (cfr. nioovog) upon Strife,readers, who think to associate ‘trust’ with some kind of hope 1, who ineites us to behave in this ways‘),I"O1‘ I:L1tL11"€7". H16 try tO clear QWQY that misunderstanding I * When that rclatignghip arise? The d3imQn’5 ‘trust’ in, Q1‘

as 51mPlY and as _bn¢Y,a5 I C3111 ‘reliance’ on, Strife in the final verse of the fragment I take to beThe ("EXP/I'6SSlOl1 veticei Ttioovog is clearly a variant of the a direct result of the daimon’s having switched allegiance from

6XPre551°n RIQDVOQ, (OF 930% QT A11)» u5¢<il F0 Clesflfibe T1 Love to Strife in the course of the dramatic events described at

i)(Er3€°n¢ who tYu_5t5 In god Of W110 ‘relies’ on god in his hour the beginning of the sequence. The daimons<<transgressions» (fr.anger or at a time of need. For example, in Aeschylus Seven Q1: 115,3; ot|,m}\,ou<i11oi) and his <<pollution>> (zbzd; |.m‘]vT|) caused

agflm” T/95565: th@ ¢h_0Fl15 Fu5l1@5 T0 Fh@ $Yi1tU¢5 Of the wrelary him to be banished from the company of <<the blessediones» (v.

jlsrénfexhig)liligétznlgxnifg “:Ltt;‘£li>_;1r;.S32§it0 Y/I16 geds» 6). The daimon has therefore been condemned to leave a world

When he is called upon to nzasteif the miraculous ti; m6”d’OI‘1)’ which O'n€ may SuppOS€ to have been ruled by LOW’plough, Jason Off his Cloak and his Hie? an tC16 Abandoning the company of <<the blessed ones» (v. 6), he has to

(pindn P)/th. IV 232234 )PHOm€r (1688 Ln if ” enter upon <<the bitter pathsof life» (v. 8). These are none other

Hector h‘ b i 1 F Id Q ' C“ 65 OW 1, than the successive incarnations (cfr. vv. 9T12) that the daimon> 8 5 39°55 6 3“ 6 1‘? > “trusnng In Zeus” (M IX must undergo in a world dominated by Strife, whose henchman

85 la0§1\’8Tg_1 I---I T|5161>\/OQ Au), <<when the blood-lust has 11¢ has now becomeentere into im» v. 2 ; ‘ ’ ‘ ’ ' 79 ,‘ i ' .

In those tii@@‘i@XtS’,’,i§‘l‘l‘i‘§§§’,‘l§’T€:’1‘tL}1l’1";6ISi1xVO8LicI?.lDSI:18Vi:St Hm my ““ °‘ “ Pas‘ “me “‘ ““" *-”“‘P“‘?‘“ Fha‘ I Wis that the individual does not act alone Whether it is theggho’ of the nal V€rse- of the fmgm€nt<1<n an Trher Pu-blicatlon’ Where

' ' if I wrote of a daimon <<who has trusted to Strife >>81. Strife, as

ms who S""kS Safety from the Sinemy at the 8at¢5> Iason who § Aristotle tells us (Met. A 4, 985 a 4-10), is cause of evil. The

braces himself for an act Ofsuperhuman PrOW€sS or Hector who I daimon’s ‘trust’ does not therefore look to the future since ‘trust’’ J

swee s all before him on the battle ld ' ‘ ’ T - - - -

‘I'€lI21II)‘1C€’ expresses the association 0fI1ui1i’;n€:Z‘doCiiS@in<inf1iiiii’; in Smf‘-‘ Can,h‘iIrClIy imply any ho-pe for beam things to Com?‘The daimons reliance upon Strife stems from the past. It is

power. So too Iwould su est the daim ’ ‘t ’ ' _ 5 .

1 d- ’ gg .’ . Ons rust’ In ‘he_COn g because he has been polluted by whatever terrible event tookC u ing verses of our fr. 115, indicates not so much an attitude 1

< - > - . . . _of faith , still less of hope, but a JO1IllI1g of the daimon’s actionY0 that Of Strife. The daimgn wl-10 ‘trusts’ in, or who ‘relies’ on 8° Hence the transition to the secondary meaning of Tcioovog, ‘obedient’, as

Surf - - - . . . ’ 2 used in the Orphic Argomzutica, 265 and 707: Ttioovoc, i<i9écp1_"|, of yielding to the

1 6 acts In Concert Wlth Stnfe' Our behaviour In thls World lyre of Orpheus (cfr. LS], s.z/., II [p. 1409]). Karsten (1838) 163, quotes the Orphicverses as a parallel for fr. 115. The two meanings are perhaps not so very different.

78 If I have followed his argument ari ht this is the ' h Ra h ’ By re’Z1nSg OS’1S3U'lfe’ v’Ie92;Ve gW§n5OurSeIv€scfYer I%55n%4‘IZnd Ii1€reIOre ‘Obey hlmfattaches to the expression v8i1<E'i' |,LOLLVO}1év%0 icioovog (frCO1n1r5OI‘2)‘Oiii ihilttaccs €d 1’ the daimoiii‘ whori<€l1Iii’s(“tr st):-idpto r9‘aviiiepSffiIfe”l>i‘ Ilasheil (see W e2r5‘3 f>"f"t‘lIieWrf)ets€eiithe gives of fr. 115 in his contribution to the present volume La c’/aronagnzp/vie dziflif I volume) ob'ects to m uh‘e of that ex ‘iession on the roundgthat it introclfuces a

@1116 d’Empe'd0cle: documents 6)/zantins inédits. See esp. p. 253: <<Du plein dévelo )e- ‘ causal connbtation rel’atin to time inpthe asi That isgindeed my intention Please

men‘ C16 la Di5COrde résultera quelque bien, ici non spécifié, pour les exilés». Ragged note however that ‘on botfi occasions I plziize the opening quotation mark after theQuotes at this point, seemingly with approval, remarks by Panzerbieter where ‘trust’ auxiliar verb Please note also that when I offer a translation as o osed to a ara-15 rePl3C¢d by ’l10Pe’, (1844) 2 (I10te)' <<der Verstossene hofft fd S’ ’ ' h yf h ‘f l f h f ’ I h " ‘pp P

79 - all en I/felt» p rase, o t e ina verseo t e ragment, putt esame expression inapresent tense,

1409) Iéeil no more ‘ha? r¢P@atlth¢ raf§r¢nC@5 gln EIILSI» 5-14 1il<5\>V0<;, I (p. 1 (1981) 85 and 86: <<]e mets ma confiance». The daimon who is Empedocles does. a s exa erate in trans t - , - ' - o ' "

1067): fgry, in8I§IOm[er] alWay§ap§ac;<;ca;;<< A(€(i€aS:1j)tI;.t?1€€CI_Ii§_lII,lé’r€)(; éaltép. indeed cgesiribi his preS§:ntbstateh(hence the teinporal zrdchierb vuvci ng the P¢I?I\1l1ltlH(121ftr€

eld) . e- verse o t e ragment _, ut is present. s a e is e ermine y a cri e c .

’ * g an to Y 6 651“? Y0 kill 0cp1t7»ou<i1]<Si, v. 3), which has been committed in the past.

__,_,_._.._.__.....__..___,,..._.,_ _._..__..t___.__~_ -W. ---~.. ~~~~-- , ----~, , -—W-~~w~ "*'*“"“' " """“ “" " ' " " ' " it “W1 1 ' "WW7 ' " ' ""—"" ' ' " '7'" '1 "W ' " ' '“H"_"_-TTTT V7 7134 DENIS O’BRlEN EMPEDOCLES: TI-IE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 135

place_in the past (fr. 1 15,3), that the daimon now finds himself .j may be Simplicius’ one and only quotation from the Kat/otzrmoitrusting to raving Strife’ (fr. 115,14: veiicet uoctvouévq) has perhaps been extracted from some other source, possibly anmouvog).

The pollution that the daimon has incurred stays with him.Because he has been polluted, and until he can be cleansed ofthat pollution, the daimon is condemned to a life of exile and

S

anthology.Even ifwe adopt the more favourable hypothesis, and ifwe

therefore suppose that Simplicius had at his disposal a complete(or extensive) version of the Kat/attrmoi, we need to guard

Wflndillg (V- 131 (P”UYét§ T---1 <5tM1TT1Q)- H6? is an 01316“ Of 1 against drawing from Simplicius’ two quotations (fr. 30 and fr.hatred to thti tilemnts (V- 12! 9'T1)'Yé01)61)- H6 has b@C0m¢ I1 All 115,1-2) a conclusion which they cannot yield. Simplicius hastatthttd a55°Ciat¢ Qt Stfit (<1ff- V$t1<€t T---1 Tttdt“/dd) in I116 3 juxtaposed verses describing the irruption of Strife when the lifedreadful deeds of murder and cannibalism to which he is now of the; Sphere is brought to an end (fr, 30) and vc[5¢5 whieh ledan unwttttngb’ addicted (Fragments 136 and 137) into an account of the crime and exile of the daimon (fr. 115,1-

VIII. Platonic and Neoplatonic inter retations of Em edocles

2). But Simplicius’ juxtaposition is no guarantee thatEmpedocles himself, in his two poems, succeeded, or even

P P 5 intended, to describe those two series of events as necessarily

Simplicius’ two quotationscoincident in time.

With that minimum of preparation, we may turn to the com- Time and timel“5'Ze55Patlson Pt the two fYag_m?m$ (tt 30_and tt- 115)» atld thetttott 1:1 That warning is needed because, as we know from many pas-of the two poems. This 1S an exceptional moment in the studof Empedocles Simplicius has quoted in the same context and

Y it sages elsewhere, Simplicius himself adhered to — indeed took forf h ' F ’ ‘Y granted — a platonising interpretation of Empedocles, wherebyor t € Sam‘? Purpose’ two sag O Vases’ Each takm from a ‘Pf’ the succession of the one and the many, and therefore a succes-ferent poem. - - -

)Many of Simplicius frequent quotations from Empedoclession of cosmic rest and of cosmic movement, firmly and

intr d d 1. . 1 k f h _ unequivocally attested by both Plato and Aristotle, is no longer0 uce exp icity as ta en rom t e Perl p/J)/seas, and

' literall true, but is a mere mythical covering for the truths ofmany others can be linked, if only indirectly, to the same P Platoniifsm andOfN€Op1atOniSms482 . . . . .‘ '

pon ' Indeed so €Xt€nSWe ls th.€ use that S‘m_Pl‘°‘“S has mad‘? F For Sim liciu as for other Neo latonist hiloso hers, the. , P 5» P P Pof the Port lo/oyseos, throughout his commentaries on the P/1)/szcs .1: anggedly mmpoml alternation of the one and the many inand the De caelo, that his quotation of fr. 115,1-2 is the onl

. h h k Y 1 Empedocles’ philosophy, as described in fr 17, is in reality anoccasion w en, t an s to Hippolytus, we can know'that the account of the: Opposition bctwggn the intelligible and the s€n_verses he records have been taken from the Kat/atzrmoz. On the i‘ -

other hand, recisel because Sim licius’ uotation of versesP t1sible worlds, and of the movement of the soul from one world

.. . . h' ' t t' n f Em edocles the versesfrom the Kat/uzrmoz is so ex ti l t b 11 ~ to th.e .Other t .15 mt.€rPr€ a 10 O P ’cep ona , we canno e sure w ere ,

Simplicius has taken his quotation from. For, especially as vers- is d€SC.nbmg Smfes dlsrupnon of the Sphere’ fonowgd by th€ forfA mation of our present world (the sequence of events inaugurat-es rom fr. 115 are quoted so often elsewhere83, we cannot know

whether the lines Simplicius has quoted have been taken from aCOPY of th€ 01' pO6l'l1, 218 1S almost certainly U‘L16 Of 84 The opposition of the one and the many that Plato attributes to <<the Muses

‘ ’ ' f h P ' h h ; of Sicily» (i.e. Empedocles), through the mouth of the Eleatic Stranger in the Sop/Jist,mp lC1L1S quotations rom t C 671 [J )/S605, OI‘ W €tl1€1‘ what 242 d 6-243 a 2 reappears in Aristotle as an alternation of rest (the one) and ofmovement (the many). See Q’Brien (1969) 169-179. For details of the Neoplatonic

82 I interpretation of Empedocles, see O’Brien (1969) 28-29, 99-101, (1981), 73-90,Ctl O_Bf1¢I1 (1969) 150-15L i 101-107, (1995) 407-408. In the paragraphs that follow, 1 do no more than sum-

83 For 2 list of sources, see O’Brien (1981) 111-115._; marise some commonplaces of the Neoplatonic tradition.

DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 137

ed in fr. 30), and the verses describing the exile of the daimon glibly of rhe Sphere as <<e0mme hers du temps» and as foreverfrom the company of <<the blessed ones», followed by his wan- contemporaneous with the elements, <<contenu en eux commedering anwng the elements (35 feeollnted in tn 115), aft! I10 une presence et comme la promesse d’un accomplissement>>, are

more than complementary descrrptrons ore smgre eVent- nonetheless treated as scholars who have a serious contributionhut that ‘event’ rs not to he taken as 3 moment marking the j to make to the recovery of Empedocles’ philosophical ideas87.

dawn or hnrnnn hrstorY> nor even as 3 moment with 3 tbemfet Paradoxically, even writers who are anxious to establishand attet ’ hxecr rh the snccessrve moments or mstoneal time their credentials as historians who have freed themselves fromThe daimones, identical to our human souls, do indeed leave i any Obviously anaehmnistie presuppositions are among the

the rnterhgrhre realm» Prodncrng> in tne eontse of tnen deseenti 1 most vulnerable when faced with the lure of Neoplatonism. Sothe world of time and space in which we now find ourselves. But 1 it is with ()5bOme_ She trumpets leud and long her repudiationthat cosmogonrear Proeess> rot the N¢0Plat0I1i$t5> is an ever‘ l of the <<nineteenth-century gulf between religion and science»,recnrnng rentnre or the cosmos> as true today as it was and as rt it which has supposedly bedevilled all earlier studies of theWrh he> at an)’ moment rn the_Past or in the future Presocratics in general and Empedocles in particular“. But at

nhhnerhf Stnres drs_rnPtron ot the SPhere> so SrmPhcrns is the same time she appears strangely defenceless when it comesand hrs eenetes heheVe>_ rs not _to_oe understood as tn any We)’ to resisting the more insidious challenge of the Neoplatonic biasan historical event, nor indeed is it in any way truly a ‘destruc- 1. present in a high proportion of ti“; many was relating totion. The Spheres destruction’, for the Neoplatonists, is no 1 Emikdocies that Suiviw from iatei Antiquitynglore than an image of the pluralisation of soul, and of the 1 Thus by Way of preparation for hgi Own Study ofa Vent or indiviuutu Souls into a_Worrer or change nnd_moVe' Empedocles, and after supposedly <<freeing» herself and her read-ment- The Sphere rtserr> representrng tor the Neopratonrsts the er <<from the idea that he [sc. Empedocles] wrote an objective,i t ll‘ ' ' ' ' ' - - -h e rgrhre World’ not only has nerther hegrnnrng nor end m ». secular, scientic work on the one hand and a personal, mystical,time' 't ' ' ‘ ' ’ ‘F . . .

, ’ 1 ls not even subjected to temporal extensron » religious work on the other» Osborne tells us, with consum-otocotoco 85 V ’ - -

( us) ' it mate self-assurance, (1987) 31, that <<the ancient interpretersknow of no division in Empedocles’ thought, and they treat it as

5 a straightforward unity». <<An approach», she continues, <<which

It should her need Saying, but it does, rhar rhe Platonic and f starts from an appreciation of the ancient interpreters gives us an

Neoplatonic understanding of Empedocles’ philosophy has not 5 oPPortnnrtY to do hkeWrse”-the slightest chance of being true historically. The whole con- But who are the “encrent interpreters” who treatCeption of an ‘intelligible world’ existing beyond the connes of 7 Empedocles’ thought <<as a straightforward unity»? That descrip-space and time is one whose origins we can discern in the writ- r tion can hardly match Plato’s scant allusions to Empedocles. Itings of Plato, and Whose development we can chart in Middle

1

hardly fits Aristotle, who does his best to pick Empedocles’ ideasand in Neo-Platonism, but which lies entirely beyond the hori-zon of thinkers of the fth century B.C.s6 It is the more discon-

t ' B k - 87 The quotations are from Bollack (1965) 34 and 115. For further quotations,Certtng therefore that authors Such as Jean O ac , who Wrlte ; and comment, see O’Brien (1969) 161-163. Bollack has covered his tracks a little

1 (but only a little) in later volumes (1969). For Bollack treated as a serious scholar, see,

t - I 1 for example, Long (1974), who attempts to strike a compromise between O’Brien. 1 85 For a useful a°.e°““‘ or uus ultcuu °.°“tePt (€:~t§:sg)fni’i§::0tacte)3 essen" ' (1969) and Bollack (1965), (1969). That such an endeavour is doomed to failure (cfr.

gs t‘? au uuuststauumg ut the .NcO.platOm.C ctinccpcé tion of timEmP3tehtY> 56¢ . O’Brien [1981] 48-49) is one of the few points, perhaps the only point, on whichttaviani (1998). For the innovation in Plotinus con p an ,timeieSS_ 1 Bollack and myseifwould

ness, see O’Brien (1985).. ‘. , 88 Osborne (1987) 26 credited by Sedley (1998) 3 with having <<certainly

86 tion to that encrah- - . ’ ’. . ’ .

Pnrmemdes ma)’ be thongnt to be an excep 8 Sation. See, inspired some important reassessment of the doctrinal relation between the two sideshowever. ()’Brien (1987) 159-151 and (19872) O;EmpedoCieS» thougim

T/ye dangers ofanac/oronism

1

——- ~w~ ~a~__»~.~~ ~ _~~ -~_-W“. _»-_-_t- arm-W M k _ 7. ~~ _~__-_r_.--__ -____a_.-W". ~ -_-.__-__-.-_~_-.~~~-_~~.7 W_ _ ..._ . ........_.. ..._.-._.__._._....._- _..,..,._._. i_...__.___.. c._..a...,.-_ .... ... _. .. ._ ._ .. .. _._. .. _ ._. 4 _ ...._._.__ .__._ .__.__.._.*_._._ _._._. .c.______.___

138 DENIS O’BRIEN t EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 139

to pieces, nor even Theophrastus, whose detailed and invaluable The muddle is nowhere more apparent than in Osborne’saccount of Empedocles in the De sensibus is strictly limited to ' attempt to grapple with Hippolytus’ references to <<the intelligi-Empedocles’ theories of perception and intelligence. Osborneis f bl W0f1d>>- Tht? @XPf¢55i0n OCCUYS twice in HiPP0iYTU5i Chapters<<anCient interpreters», who treat Empedoeles’ thought “as 3 on Empedocles. In his detailed commentary on verses drawnstraightforward unity», are presumably none Oth@t than th¢ f from fr. 115, Hippolytus tells us that <<the blessed ones» whoseNeoplatonic commentators, Simplicius, Syrianus, Asclepius, T if e°ihPahY the eiiihg daihieh has to hoiege (V- 61 eiiieand their platonising predecessors, notably Hippolytus (or his It " |~i°ii<éiP°9\’ é¢7~éiM"I<590¢1) aft? 110116 Othiif than <<Fh05@ W110 have5()ur¢@)_ g been gathered together by Love into the unity of the intelligible

Their Empedocles does indeed put forward a ‘unified’ phi- i eesihesi (Ref Vii A29>i7;i Tobi; Gicivijlwievoiie Aime’ /The iPii”iei§losophy. But he does so only because the philosophy that has it Omo Ewv noimwv gig “iv gvoniim TOD KOGHOD TODbeen attached to his name is a philosophy that, in the case of Vomioui '

Hippolytus, is heavily indebted to Plato and that, for later writ- The Same eXPY@551f3I1 (With only the simplest of simple

ers, will be noneother than the philosophy which finds expres- ellipses) °.°°““ when Hlppolytus SumI.nanS.€S Emhedocles Phi’sion in the Enneads of Plotinus. To be constantly aware of the losophy’ immediately before launching mio. hls attack onPlatonic bias in the <<ancient inter reters» is indeed an essential Prepom Hlppolytus here Coiitmsts the intelligible World ruledP _ -

prerequisite for any serious study of Empedocles. But we do not by Love with the World dominated by Strifetherefore have to adopt their interpretation. Osborne’s invita-

A

. .

tion to modern historians E d 1 , h.l h t Empedocles says that there 1S a cosmos ruled by Strife, the. . mp? OC 65 P losop y “as a evil one, and another intelli ible [ya cosmos], one that is

- gstraightforward unity» because the <<ancient commentators» did rul€d by LOW

so is 3 ieeiPe for disaster. Ref VII 31,3: xoouov yécp (pnoiv sivoii o ’Eu1ce6oi<7tc_;

tov imo tof) vsiicoug Sioixobusvov tot) novnpofi KOLi7 ' e/ / \ \ < \ /\ /Osborne: account ofI-lzppolytus etepov [sa KOO']J.OV] vontov "cov ‘DTCO tng (PULLGQ.

The seeds of the disaster are sown in Osborne’s ‘account of 1 one might havg thought that in the light Ofthosg two paS_

HlppOlyli;uS' I}? adopting for Empedocles the “Straightforward ii sages, Hippolytus’ simple distinciion between the intelligibleiihiiY” i at 5 e ihihks is ihipiieei h)’ HiPP°iYiii5i iieeeiihi Oi - world ruled by Love and the world opposed to it, ruled by Strife,Epipedocles, Osborne fails to take account of the complexities was plain enough for all to s€€. But Qsbom, Succtfds in mud-o Empedocles’ original system. But the disaster is not restricted dying even the clearest of Clear Wat¢r5_ She Wrims, (1987) 119,

to Osbomes treatment of EihPed°eie5- PaiaeieXieaiiY> ih iaiiihg i in blatant contradiction of the two texts that have been quotedto. understand Empedocles, Osborne also fails to understand (Ref vn 29,17 and 315), that, in his aeeount of Empedocles,Hlppolytus. For in attempting to adopt the <<straightforward Hippolytus <<does not refer to “the intelligible world”».U1"11tY>> that Hippolytus allegedly sees in Empedocles’ philoso-

», Even as a merely rhetorical move, such a barefaced denialphy, Osborne fails to take the measure of the platonising fea- of the words tn he found in the text of the Refumrio would betUf¢S that in faCt loom large in the text of the Refutatio. unworthy of a serious scholar. But is Osborne’s denial merely

The result is a hopeless hotch-potch. Osborne’s reconstruc-a rhetorical? She continues: <<The world under Love is, perhaps,

tion of Empedocles’ ideas is heavily indebted to Hippolytus’ pla- intelligible...» What can the word <<perhaps» be doing intonising interpretation. At the same time, her account of ; Osborne’s sentence? Hippolytus uses precisely that expression,Hippolytus is deeply flawed by having been adapted to make I once explicitly, complete with a definite article (Ref VII 29,17:room for Osborne’s own conception of what it is that 4 eig tv évotnttx TOT) Koopov TOT) vonto), and once byEmpedocles has to say. ‘ an implication so clear that no reader of the Greek text could

-_-awa.-__-.__-.____.,.._..,...

I SIT I NT K W U I “""""“F“W"" -~'i»- ~-————~ ~ -- » -<- _- H _. _.__,_,,,_

140 D1‘-N15 UBRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERJNG DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 141

possibly call the implication into question (Ref VII 29,17: . Hlppofytuj on the Pythagorean:Zétepov, [so Kooiiov] vomov tov {mo t; q>1),iq; [;¢_

8iou<o1>iiev0v]).

Osborne} <<z'ntellz'gz'ole worlds»

Osborne never recovers from that initial blunder. <<The world

,.,..._......._---~_...__.,.._____....,--....

Confusion is only worse confounded if we dip into the tangled

tale of Pythagoreanism which Qsborne reconstructs to serve as a

background for I-Iippolytus’ account of Empedocles ([1987]1 1 1-1 13).

Hippolytus’ outline of the ideas of Pythagoras and theUnder LOV€ 18, perhaps, intelligible...» She completes the sen- :1 Pythagoreans occupies a series of chapters in book six of the

mnclg is 3 Cluestlom (1987) 1101 <<but is it “the intelligible Rertatio (VI 23 sqq.). The opening chapter of the series sum-wfor d .». The reader has to wade patiently through three pages ; marises the derivation from the monad of the number series, up0. a confused account of Neo-Pythagoreanism before being I to the p¢rf¢¢t nufnbgf, ten (Ref V1 23,1_5)_ The dgfivation ofgwen the answen “Th¢ 50511105 undfif L0V@>>> O5b0f1"1<'? 110W 9011- I the number series is paralleled by a progression from point (asCCdC5; <.<lS .lI1Cl€€C1 6171. Of spiritual ‘Qn¢’) [O line (as ‘fvg/Q’), [O Suffage (as ‘thf@@’), [Q solid (as Tour’),

Word” (Osborms Own’ 1tal1C5)- f<BUt If 15 not 1‘/If iI1f¢l1igibl¢ with the tetractys counted therefore as the principle of three-“_'°§ld” (agaln Osborn“ Own 1911155) “NOB i11d¢@d>>a $h¢ WFiY¢5> I dimensional bodies (Ref VI 23,3-5)”.

irgdogri lzliewnt lntelhgllilf Wifllil f 1‘ 15 t¢mP°ranY d_15' 1 The monad and the tetractys are put to work as the arc/mi

unit Stff . b r€sent_l‘:iOr 1C_ 15 Qworld °fP1ural1tY 1,, of respectively the intelligible and the sensible world in the

1 6 m Ot ,1“ senSl_ 6 an_d_1tS lmdllglble a_5P¢C_t5”- ii opening sentence of the chapter following, which will be entire-

OSbOI:1S§;a(;lVO€1haV1n%dn‘_) _“_1tn1g1bl€ W°rld>_ Whlch 15 What ly taken up by an elaboration of the distinction between intelli-or s _wou initia y appear to imply (Osborne 11 gible and sgnsible rgality

[1987] 110: in his account of Empedocles, Hippolytus <<does

Pot refer to . th€ inielhglble WOrld”»)’ We thfimfore end up ha)“ According to Pythagoras, there are therefore two cosmoi,

two: an mt€n1g1bl€ World ruled by Love» and 3 5€COnd intel' one of them intelligible that has the monad for its principle

hg1blC_ World which 15 Il1€ <<intClligil)l€ aspect» of the world Of and one that is sensible; of this latter, the principle is theplurality ruled by Strife. The intelligible world ruled by Love is tetractys...<<temporally distinguished» from the <<intelligible aspect» of the Ref VI 24,1: 860 013v Koitoi tov Hnoiyopow eioi icoouoi,

World ruled by Sffif sic; uév vontog, be éxei tv iiovéi5oi éipxv, eig Bi»:

But where, in Hippolytus’ account of Empedocles, is there oiiontog tobtou Sé éoti tetpoiictbg [$0. éipx]...

any allusion to an intelligible world (or to the <<intelligibleaspect» of a world) that is rule by Strife? In the second of the two T: In I116 following Chptf, I116 third Of I116 $@fi¢$, HiPP0lYfl1$texts I have quoted, Empedocles’ intelligible world is specifical- ” intf0dl1C¢$> Still attfiblltfid to “I116 Pythagoranw (Ref V1 25,1),ly said to be ruled by Love (Ref VII 31,3: E-irspov [so i<oo- a pair of verses that in book seven are given as belonging to

ll9\’l \’0T1T5V 135V imf) Tg (p1>t1OLC_', [$0. 5ioii<o1’)|,igvQv])_ And it Empedocles (fr. 16, cfr. VII 29,10). The paragraphs that followthe implication is clearly the same in the earlier text: the erringdaimon h. h es aie Gtfolie l_1a_V€ been gathered togmher by LO\v€ 89 Hippolytus writes of the tetractys as the principle of <<solid>> bodies (Ref VIinto t e unity o t e intelligible cosmos>> (Ref VII 29,17: tong 23,4; eon as ii retpoimbg tow [...] otepeéiv owiiémav éipx). I paraphrase as

(Y1)\/1’['Y|.L£'ZVO1)Q {T1116 Ig (ptkiqg (3136 »;(f)V 7-;O)¥)\((’1‘)V gig Tv ‘three-dimensional’ bodies only to bring out the little paradox that, since point, line,

° ’ A / A /'\ . . . surface and solid are parallel to the first four members of the number series, bodies inSVOTITCO‘ TOD K00-HOD TOD VOIITOD) - The 0111)’ lntdllglbl T three dimensions are found at a fourth remove from the monad (and therefore have as

WOI‘l(1 that 21pp€2lI‘S in HlppOlytuS> Ch2Lpt61‘S OH EfI1p€ClOCl€S their principle the tetractys). — Rather than add random references to illustrateP ha orean number theory (from a doxographical point of view, Hippolytus is aVII 29-31 b l ' ' I Y‘ 8

but to L ) e Ongsi Without a shadow of doubt’ not to Strife source heavily contaminated by later ideas), I refer the reader to Guthrie (1962) 146-

Ov€' r 360 (chapter IV: ‘Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans’).

I

. . _. . . _ _ ~-»~ ---Q -W»---1----% w -—- —~ ~> ~—~—- ~~Y—~~~-—-~~ - >~/~ ---~ ~-- ~~ ~-~ " ~"-'"~“'*'*'" """""'—""""""'-"""""-'""" *' """"'""'*142 DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMDN AND THE TWO POEMS 143

the quotation in book six, although still supposedly referring to if the monad (Ref VI 23,1—5). All we are given, by way of a‘the Pythagoreans’, are in fact given over to a detailed account of i ‘mathematical’ illustration of Strife’s activity, is a division of tenthe activities of Love and Strife (Ref VI 25,2-4), as principles thousand into single thousands, hundreds and tens, or of drach-respectively of unity and multiplicity, of drawing together and Q? ma into obols and ‘quarters’ (Ref VI 25,3). To grace those twoof driving apart. Strife <<tears apart and differentiates and by simple comparisons as <<mathematical processes applied to thedividing tries to make the world many» (Ref VI 25,2: to 5% number system as a whole» (Osborne [1987] 111-112), addingvsiicog Siotorcéc icoti Sioupépst KOL1 nokkot rcsipttoti i<oc'coi- 1 to them the heavy implication that Empedocles is therefore5t0cp0i)v tov Kéopov Ttoieiv). Love <<draws together» and pro- drawn into the orbit of the Pythagorean number systemduces <<one» (cfr. Ref VI 25,3: ouvécyonooi [...] ivot |.Lé\/1] K061 described two chapters earlier (Ref VI 23,1—3), would be a par-$561011 iév). Hippolytus (or his source) has obviously run togeth- T ody of the truth.er, in book six, an account of the Pythagoreans with what he had my But worse is to come. In the same chapters from book sixlearnt elsewhere of Empedocles.

'1 of the Refumtia, Osborne claims that Strife is associated with thedyad. At Ref VI 25,1, she tells us, (1987) 112; <<Strife is [...] a

Hippolytus’ unnamed Empedaeles principle of plurality, corresponding with the dyad».Osborne Claims, (1987) 111’ that th€ unnanmd Empedoclés Empedocles is therefore, once again, drawn into the orbit of thewho appmrsin book Six ofthe R6mm.0(RfVI 25,1 4). 1 Pythagorean theory of number, since in his account of

e - is asso-. . . . Pythagoras, so Osborne tells us, Hippolytus introduced <<the

ciated with the Pythagorean derivation of number from the d F d d 1 8 111 Th d h d F d dmonad. Love and Strife she writes (1987) 111-12 <<are intro- . in 6 mit? ya »’ ( 9 7) i K € one an t 6 in € mite yaduced at 6,25,1 in connection with mathematical processes 5 are d;s§€l11bE?;ig§3’;_%1:it€ Simply untruc_ Hippolytus does ofapplied to the number system as a whole, and not in connection - - d h d d - h- f h d - - fwith a division between sensibles and intelligibles». I Cows}: mtfro ucit C yad Ugo ggciiugnf ii t 6 lilngatng

Is that true’ Hippolytus has indeed tacked his uotation of " A num as mm t 6 mona ( ef ’ 7 ' 6 Cou at Y 6q '31 O - 1

Empedocks, fr. 16 daikd of P th expected to do otherwise. But nowhere in his chapters ony agorean I

number theory, and its association with the distinction between I1-iI}itha%Oras andk ti? hpy-thigfor-Can; (fef X31 231124) - dogsan intelligible and a sensible world (Ref VI 25-25,1 [pp. it 11 lppo ytus Spéa O “I 6 In 8 ml“: Ya ”- n now Cm In I 6

149,26-151,26 Wendland]). But those ideas are n t t d ' Chapt £0110‘-vmg Y1 25’ on t-he, unn-am€d Empedoclgs). . O repw e In , does he associate Strife with a dyad, indefinite or otherwise.

the commentary that accompanies his (unacknowledged) quo-ration of Em edocles’ fr. 16 (Re. 25,1--4 [ . 151,26-152,15 -

ed. Wendlancii)9°. f Pp I S)/mm”;The distinction is crucial. Following his quotation of fr. i How is it that, despite the relative simplicity of the concepts

16, and in order to illustrate the activity of Strife who <<tears 1, deployed in these chapters of the Refutatio, Osborne has arrivedapart and differentiates and by dividing tries to make the world )1 at an account of I-Iippolytus’ treatment of Empedocles which ismany» (Ref VI 25,2, quoted above), Hippolytus does introduce such a travesty of the truth?an arithmetical comparison (Ref VI 25,3: Céonep 81' ‘Ctr; " The ms er origo of Osborne’s confusion I suspect lies in. herocpi9im’ti1<G)g...). But the comparison has no ostensible relation ; attempt to explain the text of Hippolytus in the light of a pairat all with the account that I-Iippolytus had given two chapters I of passages that I had quoted from Syrianus’ commentary on theearlier of the Pythagorean derivation of numbers up to ten from Y Metap/aysies”. In those two passages, Syrianus does associate

9° I count the section on ‘Empedocles’ (unnamed) as starting from the sen- 91 Syrian., Met. 11,7-12,2 and 43,6-28. Osborne (1987) 111-113. Cfr. O’Brientence that introduces the verses corresponding to fr. 16, Ref VI 25,1 (p. 151,26 sqq. ; (1981) 77-87 and 101-107 (‘Note complémentaire 2: Précisions relatives 21 l’interpré-W@ndlnd)1 T0W<1P09V KOL1 ration néoplatonicienne d’Empe'docle’).

1

@?_w

.._.-,_. __,...._ _ . . . _._- - - -~ --~ ~ W teeter ~ e -~v'"’"-""*"'""'"'*'"*"“'*"' "" """"""’""' *“"'“'1 44 DEN15 ()’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES, THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 145

Empedocles with <<_the Pythagoreans» and does identify Strife g _, That last remark is hopelessly tendentious. -Whenwith the <<indefinite dyad» (Met. 43,14-16). But — I repeat — the I-Iipp0lytL1S tellS L18 that Empedocles adopted 21 diSt_1nCt10same is not true of I-Iippolytus. Hippolytus does not refer to the between <<a cosmos ruled by Strife>> and <<anOt11¢f lntelhglhle 156'<<indefinite dyad», despite ()sborne’s claim to the contrary ¢Q5n‘1OS], one that is ruled by Love>> (Ref\/IA1 31331 1<(/XYIJQV Ydip([1987] lll: <<The one and the indefinite dyad are described,

V (|)T]6LV eivoii c» ’Eu1ce8oi<7tg tov {mo top Vi-ZLKO1)/Q 5ioii<o"o-6,23,l-2»); nor does he identify Strife with the dyad, indenite ‘ ? nevov tot) novnpo icoii etepov vontov [sa icoouov] tovor otherwise, despite, again, Osborne’s claim to the contrary {mo tg tptkiocg), the clear implication of his words is that the(l'5l'6l'-, 1121 <<5ff1f¢ 15 I---1 3 PF1nC1P1e Of Ph1rahtY> wrresponding I A‘ <<cosmos ruled by Strife» is indeed the sensible world.With thed d i ' ' ' ' iYa >>

9 The distinction between two cosmoi, one intelligible andBY Padding out the material hem the Ref“M170 with ideas ‘ one sensible, will be as true for Empedocles, in book seven of

taken from S ri O b bl' '- * ' ' i

y anus, s orne appears o ivious of the gap of . the Rgfufafl0 (eff VII 31 3) as it was for Pythagoras, in booktwo centuries or more that separate Hippolytus from Syrianus. Six (Ref V1 24,i)_ The ifaet that, in writing of Pytl1ag0I€1$,Even more disturbin l h b ' ' ' if - ' ' ' ' 'g Y’ S e aPPear5 to e lhsehslhve to the red‘ ~' Hippolytus names explicitly both terms in the opposition (Refical change that swept over Greek philosophy in that two hun- ', I; V1 24,1; o to , (xiomtog), whereas, when writing ofdred Year interval as a result of P h ’ bl' ' 1 V Tl Q" ' ' '> OYP YYYS Pd leaheh Oh the E d l , h t nl that the <<intelligible World» ruledEnneads. Syrianus and Simplicius are steeped in the profundities 9' mph OC es 6 Wm es O YL ' << h » h h ld ld by Strife (Ref VIIand the complexities of the thought of Plotinus (whose <<inde- ' bi; 3 CV6 is (it er 5 an 1t ’1hhWOr ltiuh h h h_

_ _ , , 3 ) is urey inci enta. e wor t at is <<ot er» t an t enite dyad» fulfils the role of matter in the intelli ible world), ’ ’ P - - '8 , d b h ll t n hardly not be thewhereas, for Hippolytus and his contemporaries, the philosophy it World that is perceive Y t 6 mte ec Caf h E Q, k 92 ‘V world that is perceived by the senses, as I-Iippolytus had so longO t € ned Us a Comment as yet un nown ' and laboriously explained in h1S chapter on the Pythagoreans

, . R .VI 24).Empedades “Sensible world» I ( efwhat is significantly different in our two texts is not that,Can We even trust Osborne when she tells us that, in the 1 when writing of Empedocles, I’-Iippolytusieaves the wordaccount given of Empedocles in book seven, (1987) 110-11, Y oci601116Q to be ‘understood’ from. the opp0s1t1011 116W‘/@611 W‘/0<<I-Iippolytus makes no reference to “the sensible world” and he worlds, one of which is the intelligible world (Ref VII 31,3),does not use the word aisthetos (sensible) at all in expounding g whereas in writing of Pythagoras he happens to spell out_thatEmpedocles»? She adds, by way of explanation: <<It is not clear I distinction expressis verbis (Ref VI 24,1). The significant differ-that noetos is to be understood in opposition to rzist/veto: at this 1 enee between Hippolytus’ summary of Pythagoras (Ref VI 23-point [i.e. Ref VII 29,17]>>93.

X 24) and his summary of Empedocles (Ref VI_25,1-4. and VII1 29-31) is that Pythagoras alone is credited with a distinction

For Plotinus theory of matter, see O’Brien (1991) and (1993). For Plotinus’_ b€tW€€I1 th€ IT1OI121(1, iS th€ are/ae Of th€ WO1‘lCl,

inf1uence_on the_N_eop1atonic interpretation of Empedocles, see O’Brien (1981) 102- i, ' ' f h 'ble world (Re. VI 24,1).103. Plotinus distinction between intelligible matter and the matter of the sensible 1' and the mtractys’ Pnnclp16 O t 6 S€nSl i fworld (Enn. II 4 [12]) will explain Simplicius’ claim, Phys. 31,18-34,12 eta/ibi (cfr. 1 That same distinction is nowhere attributed to Empedocles in

C)’Brien [1969] 100), that Strife is present both in the Sphere and in the world of I books six or Seven Qf the R6](1:ttdfi0 25,1-4, 29-31).sense. Have Simplicius’ passages led to Osborne’s belief, (1987) 112-103, that, in I '- d ith aHipfpolytus account of Empedocles, the present world <<is a world of plurality under III 215861‘ting that EI1’1p€ClOCl€S. h21S 13.66.11 &SSO(E21tCb WStri e in both its sensible and its intelligible aspects»? Simplicius’ conception of Strife’s Pythagorean theory Of l1L11'l1b€1‘, W1'111€ €aV1111I1g at t e d Eence Orole is entirely lacking in Hippolytus, and was not even common, so Simplicius tells > ' ' Em €dQC1QS Q3 Qrnc isus, among his own contemporaries. the WO1‘Cl (XLUGTYCOQ l1'1 th€ chapters O11 P >

93 -See also her account of Empedocles in book six, (1987) 111-112: Love and 7 straining at the p1'OV€l‘h12ll gnat (p1‘Ot€StiI1g that theStrife <<are introduced at 6,25,1 in connection with mathematical processes applied to “othgm than th€ intelligible; world need not be th€ 85311511313the number system as a whole, and not in connection with a division between sensi-bles and intelligibles».

t world) and swallowing whole the proverbial elephant (1161

1

?__

146 DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDQCLEs;T1—{E WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 147

erroneous belief that Empedocles is credited by Hippolytus with 2 i seven (Ref VII 29-31), the presence of an intelligible world castsa Pythagorean number system)94. a shadow over the alternation of the one and the many in

*5 Empedocles’ original ‘cyclic’ system. This is because an ‘intelli-Pyt/Jezgorezs and Empedocles I gible world’, of its very nature, coexists with this world and is

f d ' .I I-I' l ’ t fIf we brush aside the muddle and misunderstandin th d k ’ also exempt mm estrueuon n 1p'p0 ytus aceoun Og at ar'~ l,L dSf h f tll rka'inteach

en Osborne’s account of Hippolytus, then the survey given of 1 Empedoc es - We an tn e t ere Ore 5'1 W'O' ga S, h L , h f h ll bl ld, northe Pythagoreans and of Empedocles in the Remztio is l ’ other But nel-t er -We as am or O t 6 new lgl e Wot 'eear h ld f , l rl id toenough. In his chapters on the Pythagoreans (Ref VI 23-24), Sig-Te as elommam mht e got O sense ls ever C ea Y Saac ieve victor over t e ot er.Hippolytus records two theories which can be readily distin- Y,'b ',L << l(St l(El'1Cguished. There is first (Ref VI 23) a traditional st t t f Tl-we In O9 SIXO t 6 etmtlo Ove “for ema 6 ‘a emen O » . bl , l> R . VI 25,2: (XTC8p’YO€C,8’COLL 62PYthagOrean belief, easilY Paralleled from Aristotle and from W°rldi‘“ees““‘l“ 1.? Sterne) (ff Z E d 1 1 c X,

, _ _ * OL‘i)'lZO1Q [$6. toig 1) O€'YOpLKOLQ> vli$_ mP@_ QC $15 11 (P1 1°‘other sources, where the monad is at the origin of the number gupgapxov’ gxwtov my Kégpov), Whlle Strife, in a passageseries, and where the oint is similarl at th f ' ' ' ' 'P Y e Ongm O e Pro" i oted <<tears a art and differentiates and b dividin. . . . . , area yqu , Pgression from point to line, to surface, to solid. There is sec- if “ks to makg thg World many» (ibii; ~50 58 vgmog 5w¢g1|;qondly (Ref VI 24) a totally anachronistic distinction (at least so Kai Swupépgt Kai “Okla ngtpawu KOH;O¢5w¢pOf)v 13¢“; K65-far as P tha oreans of the fth cent d b A ' 'Y 5 “TY are e°“eeme ) eeween ; }.LOV TEOLSLV). The last verb, <<tries» (rrelpw), may seem1nn0-an intelligible and a sensible cosmos.

I

,1 h. C ld h b id of Strife inIn his 5ummarY of the belief of Pythagoras and the f Iiirlipeieildeleg’ own(;y1stemIiOThe<TiffSe2i1ei1€ce istleijt, in Hippolytus’

Pythagoreans, Hi ol tus (or his s ) h h h I - - - ' ' '_ pp Y Puree as fen t ese two t e’ platonising version of Empedocles, Strife <<tries», but is neverories together He does so by stating that the intelligible world I' 'd d. Th ' ' f L nd Strife, in Hippolytus’has as its Prineile the m°nad> While the Sensible World has for I ZelcofiiiitsLeifcfiinpedoileglhbqlsngefleaels to total victory, first ofits princi le the tetract s (Re. VI 24,1 d b . 1 'P Y f » quote a eve)

1 d d h f h h .Th r is no longer therefore anyThere is no such amalgam of ideas in the outline that l one go an t en O t e Qt er C € f 11

1‘ 1' ' ' ' f lt t' in time o t e one and theHippolytus provides of Empedocles’ philoso h The ' explclt recognmono ana emalonP Y- , .Pythagorean doctrine of the monad and the tetractys is not ‘ maniin thg Sam‘, Conmxt, Hippolytus says that the agtivitics ofattributed to Empedocles in book six of the Refutatio. Despite Love and Strife “Win nev Cease», (Ref VI 25,4; oi) nqbggxaiOsborne’s denial of the obviou E d l ' l' ' l d' ~ » \ ‘ ’ ” ‘ ' ’ ‘5’ mpe ee es 15 exp ‘elf Y ere ft‘ I oT)v outs "co veixog tov Koouov Siocipov outs 11 rpihoc tored, in book seven, with belief in an intelligible world (Ref VII i 5L éva Ta) K66 (D 1; Ogvé 005(1) A gin his words at. . . .

I . . ll . P H ' g ’ e’29,17 and 31,3). The intelligible world 1S ruled by Love. There j atiiigt ambiguOuS_ At rst glance, we might perhaps supposeis the clear im lication that th ld l d b S 'f ' h

I - ' 'P , e Wot ru e 7 tn e ls t erefere i the meaning to be, as in Empedocles, that Love and Strife <<neverthe World of our Senslble PerCePt1°n-

A cease» in producing, alternately, the one and the many. But theV formulation adopted by Hippolytus canoas well, if not more eas-

Hlppelyms and Empedocles two worlds ily, be taken to mean simply that the activities of Love and Strife. . ' ' l .In the covert account of a Pythagorean Empedocles in book six ’ “never eeaeef“ not Successwgly’ ‘lam CO.nt€I_?pOrin:gSLiSa{titud€ to

(Ref VI 25,1-4), as in the overt account of Empedocles in book There 15 the Same am We ence m . lppoky VII‘ the verses he has quoted froni fr. 113 in boo spvin (Ref

-

T 29,14-25). Commenting on t e opening verses o t e ragment9.4 See again Osborne, (1987). 111-112: Love and Strife <<are introduced at 115,1_2), Hippglytus identies anecessity» with <<the6,25,1 in connection with mathematical processes applled to the number SYStem as a y d h . H f S - f d

whole». 1bz'd.: <<Strife is a principle of plurality, corresponding with the dyad». ’ Cl'1211'1g€—OV€I' 1:I'OfI1 OI1€ IO many, Un er t 3 1n uence Q tn 53> an

.,.....a._.-. -__..W.....W.W.. . ma...‘ -. __-W“ . . - -V W148 DEN15 Q’BRIEN EMPEDQCLES: THE WANDERJNG DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 149

from many to one, under the innenee QfLOv¢» (Ref V11 29,23; I of an intelligible world. It is because the Sphere has been iden-étvoiyiqnv i<ot)t(T)v tv évog gig 1t07t}t(‘>t iqnttét 13¢‘) vi-;'f1(()Q tified with the intelligible world that the alternation of the oneKai éK TEO7t7t(I)v Eig iiv Kovtoi tv (ptiotv |.L8'tocBo7\.1"|v). Those e and the many is nowhere stated clearly and unequivocally inwords might well seem to correspond to Empedocles’ ‘cyclic’ 5 I-Iippolytus’ account of Empedocles in the Reitatzo.alternation of the one and the many, as described in fr. 17. Butthat is hardly the implication when, commenting on the penul-timate verse of the fragment, I-Iippolytus identifies the world ' IX. Primavesi’s successive thesesthat Empedocles has left (fr. 115,13: 98('>9£v) with the <<one»

that is the Sphere, <<the unity» in which he was <<before being i Primavesi and the Platonic l'11l‘@1”p1'6‘l‘¢lfi01¢ 0fEmPm'05[@5torn away by Strife and coming to be among the ‘many things _ i been Successful in negotiating the p€r_we see here, governed as they are by the dispensation of Strife» j as nmaves. . . Y . FE d 1 ,Th answ, to(Ref VII 29,14: Gsov 1<oc?»6)v "co iév icoii tv éiteivoo évc'>tn- Y 115 efa Plafomemg mterPr€tanOnhO .mpe QC es‘ TE bb nd"cot, év v [sc. ’E|.LTt£5o1<7tg] Ttpiv {mo tot) \)gi}(()1)g I that question ‘IS more difficult t an it ma}; seem. ‘e e 51

émoorcocovoit Kori yevéo9oii év "coig nokkoig toinoig "cote , ew Of assemee and Counteeassemon’ O ?S1§u.mpU011 an - ifKara ml“, Tot) Vemoug 5wK(')6pn6W)_ Qn reading those counter-assumption, in the first ten pages o. plmaveiis articewords, it is not at all clear that the world that Empedocles has left ' mlght almost have been deslgned to Induce 1n t 6 tea er a Stateceases to exist because Empedocles has left it95. i of “P0 {'14- h

The implication is no different in I-Iippolytus’ allusion to Llght dawns» when We reahse that these Pages are not W at<<the intelligible world>>, earlier in the same chapter. When ~ they mlght at first sight appear be. They are not a convegHippglytus degetibes <<th¢ blessed Ones» (fr_ 115_6) as <<thQ5e tional outline of various possibilities and difficulties which t e

Wht) have been gathered tggethet by Lgve int() the unity Qf the 21L1tl101‘ pl21I1S t0 take t1CCOL1I1t Of ln tl1€ final St21tClT1€I1t Of l11S tl1€-

intelligible cosmos» (Ref VII 29,17: 'coi)g oovnypévoog {mo - sis. They are something very different indeed. In order to maketg (ptkiong émo IGW Tto7t7t(TJv sig Iv évomw TOT) Koouoi) sense of these pages (Daimonolagza 3-17), we need to set: InTOT) vomo), it is not at all clear that the intelligible world them a record of the various theses that Primavesi had onceestablished by Love ceases to exist when the daimones who have 1 thought to adopt, and that he has abandoned in the course oferred are forced to leave that world and to enter upon <<the bit-

1 his researches96.ter paths of life».

Osborne fails to see the distinction. When she claims,(1987) 115, that <<The one, which is the world under Love, doesnot at present exist since its existence is only brought about attl'1€ CllSSOlL1tiOI1 Of tl1€ present WOI‘ld Of plurality», l1C1‘ 1‘CIT1é11‘l{ 96 The intellectual itinerary that I map out for Primavesi in the following pages

- > - I ' ' b ' l ' l n reconstruction, and may well thereforewillbe true enough of Empedocles account of the Sphere in the , thli)s€e;:;;t¢; 2;}l,I1d:€§-P;Z;nE_ggg:1lgn't referqnces and quotations from,P671 P/J)/S605. But OSbOfHC f211lS tO S66 that It 1S p1'€ClS€ly that £53‘ I Primavesi’s Daimonologia I hope will make immediately clear when nly lreport is

tL11‘€ Of EII1p€ClOCl€S) S}/St€II1 IS tl'11‘€éltCI1€(1 by the presence founded directly on the text of Primavesis article, and when the frameworn gt I prplg

vide for the points taken from his text is the result ofmy own £11 hqpeci we -inhogme

surmises. My motive for undertaking so unconventlona , an 111 66 U110" O OX» 3

style of criticism is a simple, and I hope a charitable, 01161 M11655 I ad°Pt Some Sueh95 In Hippolytus’ commentary, tv éiceivov [re ’CO'f) 980%] évotnttx, both i approaeh I cannot make sense of Primavesis thesis at all. My frequent attempts to

looks back to the three verses that have been quoted by way of a description of the read the pages I have been sent as the linear exposition of a thesis that hqii beeSphere (Ref VII 29,13, fr. 29), which is itself identified as <<the one» produced by 7 thought out from beginning to end before the author ever se; pen to paperd ave aw

Love (cfr. Ref VII 29,12: fitoiv at f] (pl2\.10L éic 1co7t7ttI>v noton to i~iv...), and looks 5 ended in despair. Without a genetic explanation of the kindl avq attemqte grqiggqforward to <<the unity of the intelligible world» (Ref VII 29,17: ‘tv évotntoi tot) vide, Primavesis pages dissolve into 3.]uml)lC.Of1f1COI‘lSlStClTC;€S, a c(pttero ass C,](6Q'pQ1) 10$) v0m;Q{))_ : assumptions, suggestions that seem to be pointing in all dif erent irections at onc .

"'"/~*"—*"-—*-"T*"*—~-——"~—~*~"~-~'—v*—¢—'>-~~~~~~~ ——~ ~-'~' --~---- --— ——-» —~— ~-- '~- -- ~-- I - ------_--_-_-F--------1 - V .._-»_-_-...__-_-__.._v--_-__.- . 2 ..._ U>'Y'—'<> _w,_-.._._..,_,__._..__,___._ _ . .i _ _ _ W~ -v W - -<--- - -»—------ --W---~ --------~..__.v-7..-W--H - -_~ ---.-7

150 DEN15 O’BR1EN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 4 151

Early days T The daimon of fr. 115, let it be agreed, is a portion ofQ I I v ‘ C ' ' Q

The garb, da,s in the gvolution of Primav -> . Love, contaminated in this world by its trusting to Strife (cfr.Y esis re t

Empedocles will have found him, 1 suspect, faced witelei itiivllsdifi ‘i V'}4)98' eel 115’ E1‘e delniqn as mpedeeflee eivfn “ii (1:13{Gem but ha il . 1 Tcov KOL1 eye) vuv etui...). e ainiones o r. 5 W1 _t ere-

-llhem Pp FY i “$1.1” 1eerepee_.ml;ee' S b fore explain the nature of the mysterious <<we» that the editors ofnd th Flee’. leeeiqe e lleeeveryde tf dues eurg Papyrus’ 1 the Strasbourg papyrus are convinced must be the reading that

e fee lee lee t at e erge en uni e gap preceded the ~ the scribe of the papyrus found in his exemplar, and not theVetses Whe1e= E1111)’ e1ea11Y tot the t115t t11he> E1hPet19e1e5 * result of a mere scribal error, corrected, for that reason, by thedescribes, on a cosmic scale, the alternation of the one and the ,1 Second hand of the papyru5_

many (Eur fr‘ 17)‘ , The pieces of the jigsaw (so it will have been thought) all_T ete was 5ee°11e11Y the he11et> "e1X t915h1°heh1e 111 the eeh“ {y happily fall into place. The <<we» of the papyrus will be none

Cludmg Yeats Pt the 1a5t Ce11t111Y> that D1e15 had heeh 3 V1et1m Qt other than the daimones of fr. 115. If the daimones of fr. 1151115 age and I1m¢- Th? Hlnétenth Century witnessed the great are included in the proem to the Peri p/ayseos, then even beforedCl)€lI€ b€tW€CI1 DQIWIH and traditional Llpl1OlCl€1‘S Of ‘E1163 1 Pauganias (Emp@dQQl¢5’ 119113 tQ() gfrivgg at the [315

a debate that was soon popularised as a conict between ‘sci-1 that will be told in the Strasbourg papyrus, he will already have

ence’ and ‘religion’97. That conflict, it was claimed, cast its shad- learnt, from what he has heard in the verses of fr. 115, how it isow over Diels’ edition of Empedocles in his Poetarum that <<we» could form part of the dramatic and terrifying eventsp/ailosop/aorumagmentrz, and led to the separation of fragments that are recounted in the papyrus and that follow on from theon ideological grounds. The ‘scientific’ fragments were put in i ‘double tale’ of the one and the many that Simplicius has record-the Peri 10/1)/seas. The ‘religious’ fragments, notably fr. 115, had if (Id in fl 17 (V-11 517157», ePee°---)-therefore to find their home in the Kat/Jarmoi.

For the editor of the Strasbourg papyrus, the glorious ; Argumrfvr t/76’ ‘0PP05l'F1'0"’

Opportunity beckoned eekileng ewe birds with one Stone‘ Move 1 There is onl one small local difficul Before seizin the new- - - ,; Y ’ g

L15. £191“ t1‘fe}f(‘”/"”’"”"’D1F’l111e Pen 5/3/360,5’ and place It at f and glittering prize that must have seemed to lie so close ate egmmng e e ee poem‘ le S Outme e nmeteenth'CentutY ‘T hand a quick demolition job has to be done. Whatever more' ' I I 0 - ' ’

P1e°eetl:Pet1eh5 W111 he 10hge1 e1ete11h111e the e11V151°h Qt hag‘ if narrowly technical reasons there may have been for Diels’ plac-meme etween the two Poems? The YeW111hg gap at the heg111' It ing of fr. 115 in the Kat/Jarmoi have to be got out of the way.1111115 Qt the Pe1'4 P/175605 W111 he at 1et15t Pe1t1Y t111et1- _' But only minimal time need be spent on such an exercise, since

; Diels’ division of the fragments has already been condemned byThe “we” ofthe St"‘15b0”1'gP‘1P)”"”5 ' ‘_ the more enlightened representatives of scholarly opinion, who

The new placing of the fr. 115 would even seem to carry with a1e.“‘:i1°“ge1 uder e Spell if °1.1tm°‘1e‘1 ‘;11‘;t"’.e“t11‘ee“.‘“lf1Yit an incidental, but not insubstantial, benefit. With fr. 115 act- 1 emtu ee feewer E re lglee en eelenee’ en e elf tweneet 5- - y centur a termat .

me as e proem to the Perl ‘D/7)/Sees’ the ewe» that eppeere ee A Thr ar uments will suffice to resent the case for the. . . g pStrangelyfa S‘? dleeeneerlimgly 1? the Eereee ee the Strasbourg ‘opposition’, three arguments in favour of the thesis that fr 115

a rus, 1 » . '.P py F °1°W‘11.=i5l°b“ ee e ey do rem e e eeery ef the e1e1‘,1e11tS 1 was taken from the Kat/Jarmoz, three arguments that Wlll bein our r. 7, wi e explained by the nature of the daimon - - - - 99

whose history will already have been told in fr. 115. ~ qulekly dlscerded (Delmonologm 9-11) '

98 See O’Brien (1969) 325-236, (1995) 442-443, (1996) 641. Cfr. Martin andt Primavesi (1999) 85-86.

97 F _ 1 99 In the published version of Primavesi’s paper, these are of course no longeror a dramanc’ e1O5e't1P V1eW Qt these events» See Geese (19071 ‘ arguments for the ‘opposition’. On the other hand, no-one reading the arguments for

-~_-___.___.....-P...-,..-.,_._-.,_.,...

_ . . __ 7 7 ~ V ~ I "— ..~r—~—— ‘ .—~-~'w-W-*"~*" "*'"""'"“'""' " ' " ’ """"" “"“"" 7 '

152 DENIS O’BRIEN

— Stein} argument

The rst argument is from Stein (cfr. Daimonolo itt 9 10). S

EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND Tl-IE TWO POEMS 153

- /1n argumentom Hzjrpolytm

g — tein,Y 1 A second argument for the ‘opposition’, and therefore again in

(1852) 2143, argued that ff- 115 Sl10L11d be 1iI11<¢<1 F0 fl 112, 1 it favour of the thesis that fr. 115 was taken from the Kat/atzrmoz,verses which Diogenes (Vitae VIII 54) placed at the beginning 3 is drawn from Hippolytus (Dtzimonologztz 10).of the Kat/Jtzrmoz. For only Empedocles status as a daimon, pro-claimed in the concluding verses of fr. 115, could haveexplained (so Stein argues) Empedocles’ apparent claim to be a

god in fr. 112,4-5.

i

For the methodical reader, this is a trie disconcerting,

since, on the following page (p. 12), Hippolytus will be quoted

in favour of the contrary thesis, namely that fr. 115 appeared inthe Peri p/1)/seas. In the space of three pages, therefore,

Stein’s argument, forcefully repeated by Zuntz [1971] 240, , Hippolytus is quoted in favour of both theses: rst, in favour ofis curiously similar to the argument which would point to the the thesis that fr. 115 came from the Kat/vtzrmaz (p. 10), andinclusion of fr. 115 in the proem to the Peri pk)/seas. In both i secondly, in favour of the thesis that those same verses came

cases, what we are told in fr. 115, so it is claimed, is needed to ‘Z from the Peri p/2)/seas (p. 12).make sense of what we read in later fragments, whether in fr. But the duplication, I suspect, will_have seemed of little112 (taken from the Kat/otzrmoz) or in the verses of the 3 importance, since Hippolytus’ testimony in favour of placing fr.

Strasbourg papyrus (taken from the Peri 10/J)/seas). Only " 115 in the Kat/atzrmoi can be dismissed almost out of hand.

Empedocles’ vision of himself as a daimon can explain his Hippolytus’ reference to <fthe Ktzt/Jmv’/101 Of EmP¢dOCl€5”’ soapparent claim to divinity in fr. 112. Only Empedocles’ inclu- Pfimvei a$§uf¢$ L1$_(Dlm07’l0[0gl 10 11- 24), 116651 1191 besion among the daimones of fr. 115 can explain the strange § IIaC11¢f1 Y0 111$_ qL10I%1t10I1 0fV¢f$@5 ff0_IT1 FR 115 (§¢<'I § V3b<iV<2-

occurrence of the <<we» in the Strasbourg papyrus. 1 Pflmvsl Can _th@Y@f°Y@> haPP11Y and _(l_u1Ck1Y> Con; uh€It is perhaps a certain fellow-feeling which therefore leads 1 that» §° far as any Wldence from the Refumtw 1S,CO§C€lr?e ’ t 6

Primavesi to treat Stein’s argument almost with indulgence. The 5 quesrwn of the Poslmm of fr‘ 115 must yd agam € 6 t 0p€n'claim to be a daimon, Primavesi generously acknowledges, couldhave appeared at the beginning of both poems. An acknowl-edgement which, generous though it may be, leaves the positionof fr. 115 uncompromised. <<A quale dei due poemi appartengala formulazione di questa dottrina [sc. the story of the daimon],enunciata in B 115, resta quindi un problema a erto»(Dtzimonologia 10).

the first time, in their published form, would possibly have guessed that Primavesi was

E

E

Whether the verses I-Iippolytus has quoted were taken from the

Kat/mrmai <<deve restare, ancora una volta, un problema aperto>>

(Daimonologitz 10).

—- An argumentom Aristotle

P J The third and final argument for the ‘opposition’, the flimsiest

of all, turns on Aristotle’s evidence (Dtzimonologitz 10-11).

Aristotle’s frequent references to Empedocles are illustrated by

Simplicius with quotations, the great majority of which (perhaps

nearly all, see § VIII above) have been taken from the Perz phy:

seos. On the other hand, Aristotle nowhere refers to Empedocles' ' ' ' ' l uotes a verse (De ctzelo

at this point putting forward the position that he would himself adopt later in his dalmones’ Whll€ Sunphaus on Y Oncg qpaper. Quite the contrary: Primavesi’s preliminary presentation (Daimonologia 9-11) 587,20, fl‘. 59>13 sail-LOV1 50111-L(1)V) Contains th€of the evidence for placing fr. 115 in the Kat/aarmoi leads the reader to expect that WOrd100_ Aristotlés Silence on thg qu€StiOn of daimones is th¢r¢..the fragment was not part of the Kat/aarmoi, which was indeed the conclusion '. . . . . . . ' ' ' in favour ofPrimavesi had drawn in the version of his text first circulated to the contributors to fore taken by Prlmavesl as having b€cn an afgurnltthis volume, before his dramatic change of mind (see § I above). The implication thatfr. 115 does not belong to the Kat/Jarmai is especially apparent in Primavesi’s curso-ry treatment of I-Iippolytus. The evidence of the Rqttatio in favour of placing fr. 115 ‘°° Simplicius quotes only the first two verses of fr. 115 (P/1)/L 11849-10)-in the Kat/uzrmoi is dismissed almost out of hand (Daimonologia 10). ‘Daimoms’ do not appear until verse 5.

- - --- -»--»~ -- - --< ~~~-~r_.-.-~- V - V we ..._.....aW W,__,___.._ _. . ._ ._.. ..... _ _. _, . . VW _____, _ _ _ n _

1 4 »

5 DEN15 O BR1E1‘1 EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND TI-IE TWO POEMS 155

Diels’ alleged desire to exclude ‘daimonology’ from the Perz'p/ay- 1 this stage in the evolution of Primavesi’s ideas, I take to be theseos and to place fr. 115 therefore in the Kat/Jezrmoi. 5 main purpose of the exercise, the placing of fr. 115 in the Peri

So far as I can remember, Diels does not spell out that argu- ff P/1)/;@0,<1°1, ‘

ment anywhere, nor does Primavesi provide the reader with a 1 But what can be the evidence for that thesis? The underly-reference to any of Diels’ writings. But possibly it is wrong to f ing motive is clear enough. Qnce it has been transferred to thelook for any precise reference. Primavesi may simply have 1 ? Peri p/1)/seos, fr. 115 will answer the needs of the Strasbourgthought to deduce, from the division of fragments in Diels’ edi- 1 j papyrus, needs both material (the long gap that we now knowtlOI1. of Empedocles, that such must have been the argument 1 intervened before the block of verses constituted by the con-lurking somewhere at the back of Diels’ mind. V junction of fr. 17 with the verses of the papyrus) and ideologi-

In any case, the lack of any precise reference to Diels will 5? cal (an explanation of the nature of the ‘we’ that appears in whathave seemed of minimal importance, since the argument has would otherwise have been thought to be the story of the ele-barely to be stated before being knocked clown. For to cguntef 1'; ments). But, however desirable in itself that outcome may be,Diels’ alleged argument, Primavesi replies simply that Arist()tl¢’5 evidence is still needed to support it. Where can such evidenceevidence is difficult enough to control when he says something, 1 be found?Derzmonologia 11: <<...riguardo a cio che egli dice su Empedocle»

- ' ' ' ' ll 1 -(Primavesfs italics), impossible therefore to evaluate when he 1 Osborne, Bollaek, Przmaveszdoesn’t say something: <<da cio che egli [se. Aristotele] non eliee[Primavesis italics], non si puo ricavare senz’altro un validoezrgumentuin e sz'lentz'0>>. So neat (especially the pretty balancebetween dzee and non dice, kindly brou ht to the reader’s atten-

Primavesi concludes his preliminary survey of evidence for theposition of fr. 115 with the following question (Dezimono/ogia 16):

- g 1 C"d l h'd ~" i 'b'lnon b the usg Ofitalic S . 1 si ‘eve so tanto c ie ere. esiste una ausi i e,.non neo-Y S? 9 d€Vastatlng' _ platonica integrazione della daimonologia nella fisica?

But, to the conscientious reader, Primavesi’s argument,merel as an ar um ' ' ' '> ~

1 Y S e111» W111 _be c1eeP1Y 11c111)1111g- F01 P11maVe5_15 That sentence falls at the end of a paragraph. It appears to beSP 117,13 f 1e S 15 a 111051 as 1111115)’ as 111e a1g11me111 c°11cec1e11 111 * cast in the form of a rhetorical question The reader will natu-

ie s . 1 " ; . ' .th€€ fnie Plmavesls 10111111 O1 a1_g11111e111 may We11 enccur‘ rally assume that the answer intended by the author is: <<yes».

ea r ' - i . . . . .Agri tl , c O _511Pli’c5e 1 111 D1e15 was 11””mg 111 1_31<111g ii <<Yes, there does exist a plausible, non-Neoplatonic integrationP8; o/yes si encj tqlimp y that there was no daimonology lI1.tl'1€ of the daimonology in the phySies,,_

P Q1160‘, 1111 1 e1e e1e 1° 511PPc5_e 111111> _cc1111a1Y 1° Dlels In that question, and in the answer which it is fairly clear-supposition, Aristotle dzd know of daimones in the Perz 112/1)/seos, : 1y designed to elieit in the mind of the reader We See I would

, 3 >

even though he has failed to allude to them in his extant writings. suggest, one of the earlier strata in Primavesi’s reflections onBut, were that to be taken as the implication of Primavesi’s

1 Em 'j pedocles. The reader of my preceding pages (§ VIII above)101111 O1a1g11111e111> We 511O111c1 be 1ace‘1 W1111 11 "e1Y °bV1°115 "0" i will have no difficulty in recognising its probable origin. Thesequ.ztur..Primavesi would have sought to refute an ezrgumgmumex sz/entzo (the one attributed to Diels) with another argumen-tum ex 5111577310 OWn)- 101 Again, this is the position that Primavesi has abandoned in the published

version of his paper. But, as before, the arguments are presented in such a way that' -> < - 2 they still oint to the position that Primavesi has (now) abandoned. This is especial-

Prlmavesls N6010lawn” Programme ly true of) Primavesi’s initial attempt to harness Platonic and Neoplatonic authorsP - - . . (Daimonologia 11-14) in favour of the thesis that fr. 115 formed part of Empedocles’

I'1IT121V€Sl l1OW€V€l' 1S Sat1Sfi€(1 that l'1€ l1€lS d0l"l€ l’1lS duty in St21t- 1 ‘physics’ and was therefore originally part of the Pb)/si/ea (see the quotations given

mg ‘he 1" the ‘OPPWH’ the Placing of R 115 in sh@ ‘§fI.i°§i1§.’l§‘$53?‘l§§°ffn1°ii§‘li1§fZ‘$?‘Z§’2Z;ZZI1iZf3/lZ1i1;?Fi1El.’i‘%i‘$ifg‘1i1?§V >' ' , P P gKat/7arm0l)' We can now 1-1111111 (D¢ll7770770[0gl6l 1 t0 Wllélt, at best to argue for a position that he held to be false.

. _ M >*?'Yi.._ ..____c. ,.._. _. ..__- . I V V 1- -V

156 DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES- THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 157

programme that Primavesi Would here seem to envisage is most t it Th0$¢ thf Sntences Ohviottsh’ aPPeat to that author as asimply taken as a thinly veiled repetition of Osborne’s plea that l 5 mere statement of the obvious. They are enough to ll an tt¢11-modern historians should adopt the <<approach» of <<the ancient tive and sceptical reader with the deepest misgivings. POI, tivtinli-ti Pl¥1t0niC and N¢0Plat0I1iCl int@tPt¢t@t5>> in tteiltillg it before entering into any more detailed examination of theEmP¢d0t5l¢5’ thought 35 ‘<3 8tr=1ightfOIWard unity» (Osbott?

A authors to be quoted in illustration of Primavesis programme,[1987] 3 1)-

I the statement of the programme itself appears deeply flawed.Primavesi does of course reco nise that the l nch- in f th8 Y P 0 6 Does the programme, as stated,.tu,rn on anything more

Platonic and Neoplatonic interpretation of Empedocles, name- than a play of Words, a Shift from fisica to P/J)/51/84? B¢C=1t1$¢ly the existence of an intelligible world coexistin with the worldg1 primawsi is looking for <<una plausibile, non neoplatonica inte-of sense, would be a total anachronism in the thought of grazione della daimonologia nella sica» (p_ 16),and because heEm edocles (Daimonolo ia 15 16). I l k' ' h f

1 ' ' 'P Z ' h O0 mg Wlt avout on . supposes (p. 11) that, on the Neoplatonic interpretation ofthe strategy proposed by Osborne, he will therefore have had no , d 1 , h d ' l f fr. 115 was ‘an integral part’intention of adoptin her foolish tactics (an att d h 5 Empe QC es t P an-min? Ogy>Og emptto enyt eV h f ’h h f 5(1), 11)existence of an intelligible world, properly so called, in T of Empedocles.? yslcs ( Isms) e t Us Ore.SuppOSe. d f h P la (‘P/1 hi,Hippolytus’ testimony on Empedocles). Still less will he want to ‘ that tn 115 Ongénany ttzirmle part O t 6 twp J/that ya

have any truck with B0llack’s openly neoplatonising interpreta- taken as a title O Empt QC es potmltion of Empedocles.

More circumspect than Bollack, more intelligent thanP Daimmology and ha/Si“,

Osh°the> Pttmavtsh at this stagt th his t¢s¢atCh@s> Plans to it The reader’s misgivings are confirmed by the form of words thatad°Pt> so to sPeak> a N@<>P1at<>Hi¢imerprtation Qt Empsdocles

1' Primavesi has adopted in stating the thesis that would relateWithout th N l ' .1-I l ’ - ' ’ ' ' ' '6 6°19 atohlsm C P ahs t0 makt Qt Emlaedotles ‘ h sics’ to ‘daimonolo Primavesi writes that on the Middlethought a unity’ hut Without aPP@ahhg> as did the ;iDnd,Neo-Platonic intertfetation of Empedoclesjthe daimonolo-Neo l t ' h f ' ' ' '

1 ' 'p a onists, to t e presence o an intelligible world (and its ff_ 115 t t I nus d@11aS1¢a»( _ 11),identity with the Sphere).

A play on words?

Primavesi’s ‘Neoplatonic’ programme is called upon to providethe evidence he needs that fr. 115 was originally part of the Peri

gy o r <<compare come par e in eg a P

The Platonic and Neoplatonic interpretations ofEmpedocles did indeed present his thought as unity. But whyshould we suppose that, on a unified presentation ofEmpedocles’ thought, the daimonology of fr. 115 <<CQIT1P€1t¢

come parte integrante della fisica»? From the simple prem1SS thatp/1)/seas. Our main Platonic (Middle or Neo-Platonic) authors, Empedocles’ thought was a unity, W6 might 85 W611 Claim thatPlutarch, Hippolytus and Simplicius, are all three introduced as his ‘physics’ was Part of his daimonology as that his da1mOnO10_evidence in favour of the thesis that <<i testi daimonolo ici con-g gy was part of his ‘physics’.hesst a B 115 aPPattChg°h° at P/7)’sl.'t‘Z” (D”im””0[0gt” 11) T The reason Primavesi ado ts the second formulation and' P<<Questa tesi», we are told (ibzd, with Primaves1’s own italics), <<Sl not thg rst I Very much Suspeq, 5[¢m5 from his antecedent

Jappoggia alla recezione empedoclea del medz'0- e del neoplatonismo»' ' ' h f. 115 " ll f rmed part ofthe proem toOn that inter retation of Em edocle l d ' l ' Convlctl-on t at t or-lgl-na Y 0 'P P S’ ti a almono Ogla rapptet the Perl p/oyseos. From claiming the daimonology of fr. 115 assentata in B 115 compare come parte integrante della fisica»t°2. < - >an integral part of Empedocles’ ‘fisica’, ratht than th t¢V@tS6,

Primavesi can the more easily pass to the conclusion that fr. 115‘O2 In their context (Daimonologia 11), the three sentences transcribed above act was th@fefQfQ part Qf the ‘P/7)/Sltkdt.

as a rubric introducing the authors whose evidence will be reviewed on the pagesimmediately following (Daimonologia 11-14).

158) o’Ba1eN T T H EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 159

The Neopiatonie use of I15 part of Empedocles’ physics» (<<come parte integrante della fisi-. .

. . ca was the ri ht one?Matters are not improved if we try to look beyond the erratic ii) g ' lausi-. . . . We can e ually well indeed some would say more ppresentation of Primavesi’s programme, and to uncover its sub-1 q ibly, suppose that the interpretation of Empedocles adopted bystance.

. ., . . ' Middle and Neo-Platonic authors was founded precisely onPrimavesis (to my mind) contorted argument Wlll become ‘1 their joining verses from the Kat/nzrmoi with verses from the Peri

a trie clearer if his statement of it is put the other way round ‘. ., . ' ' to _p/ayseos, using their concept of an intelligible world to bind theLet us therefore state rst Primavesis remiss (taken fr h -P . . Om t e two (disparate?) sets of verses together1°5.second two sentences, quoted above), then his conclusion (taken

from his rst Sem€nCe)' T/we origins oft/ae pliztonising interpretation ofEinpedoeles

Primtzz/esispreiniss. Let us allow tzrgumenti cizusa, that in what Both the Sphere Of the Peri p/9)/seas and the <<bleSSeCl Ones» Of fr.Primavesi calls the Middle and Neo-Platonic ‘reception’ of 115 were easy prey for being taken by the Platonists as Comple-Empedocltfs, <<th¢ daimonology r¢pf@S¢i1I@<1 iii fl 115 mentary images of the intelligible world. The unit)/of the Spherea ear ' l f ' 105 ' ' 'PP 5 as an imegra Part ° the Physics» (fr 29) oined to the pliinzlzty of <<the blessed ones» (fr. 115,6)

. - 1 .Primavesi} conclusion. Let us now state the conclusion sup- would have answered neatly [Q the Neoplatonic concept Of tl1€posedly drawn from the premissi “Thfi daimonological texts intelligible world as a unied];/umlity of forms, each of whichconnected with fr. 115 belon to the P/9 sikn»1°4 -g 3' ' was a living intelligence1°6.

, ,, _ , If that conjunction of ideas was at the origin of the platon-On viewing that argument, the careful reader groans with dis-

° ' ' ' f E d l , th n the argument outlinedbelief Why do we have to su ose that because M'ddl d lsmg Interpretation O mpe OC 68 C- PP > 1 1 e an b P ' ' b obviously fallacious. The Platonic andNeo-Platonic writers joined the quotation of fr 115 to texts Y nmavesl Tomes- N 1 ' ' t' n of fr. 115 with texts taken from thehaving to do with Empedocles’ physical theories, therefore the eop atomc assocla 10P ' /1 ' ntee at all that fr. 115 was itself takenfragment itself was taken from the Peri /7 seos? an ‘D J/S60! ls no guaraP J’ f h .How are we to know that the context supposedly su lied mm t at poem' PP Indeed, quite the reverse. Niztumin expeilas furen...for fr. 115 by Middle and Neo-Platonic writers <<as an inte ralg Primavesi’s attempt to adopt a ‘Neoplatonic’ programme .W1tl.1-

out the Neoplatonism will have foundered. Primavesi will‘O3 1 here join together the two sentences quoted earlier from Dairnono/ogia 11: indeed have recognised that the WO1'1d Qf the

<<Questa tesi si appoggia alla recezione ernpetioclea del metii0- e tie! neopkztonismo», and Platonists can be nothing but an anaCl11'OI11SIT1 111 EfT1P@€10C1¢5’<<1n essa [sc. tesi] [...] la daimonologia rappresentata in B 115 compare come arteP - - ' ' ' ' t t tionintegrante della fisica». 1dea5 (cfn Dlmonolagm But the platonlslng In erprfi a‘°“ Fhis is the rst of the three sentences I quoted earlier, again from would still have exerted its baleful influence. Primavesi will have

Daimanoiogiiz 11: <<I testi daimonologici connessi a B 115 appartengono ai P/aysika» _ , . .- ' f osin that the Platonists association—- I have omitted a clause inserted at the beginning of Primavesi’s third and final sen- fallen Into the trap O Supp gtence, quoted in the footnote preceding this. The full text runs as follows, " Of fragments in f21Ct came tWO different poems)fcan

Daim_on0i0gE¢zE11: “I51 efsa] [s2 thedthesis allegedly suppplrted by tpe platqriislingl in5er— be taken, without more 3dO, 21S 3 guide t0 the placing Of thlfi gag-r tati n , t t t m ita , , - - ' 'ihgnolggiaorapplileiignfeitzisin B61115?/ciiiiiSi0jJ}:i2fei1cii)iiie€pl:i7ite iriisteogfaente dlella fi§iSca».a\X/lilait ments ln one and the Sam€ PO€m (th€ P6711”/7.75605)‘ H6 W1 avecan be the point of the clause I have printed in italics? Taken literally, Primavesi’swords would have to mean that, according to Aristotle, the daimonology of fr. 115was not an integral part’ of Empedocles ‘physics’. But how do We know this? Aristotle ‘O5 ‘Some would say more plausibly" perhaps I should not be too coy. This isdoes all d Enot u e to mpedocles’ daimones. From Aristotle’s silence we cannot there- the explanation I gave of the origins of the Platonjc and Neoplatonie) interpretationfore know whether or not he considered the daimonology to be part of Empedocles’ of Empedocles morethan twenty years ago. See Q Brien’ 7Zlf9 -‘physics’. Nor therefore can we know that his view of the relation between 1°“ The identity of Plotinus forms as each a diving lime lggceil as iédEmpedocles’ daimonology and his physics would have been different from that of the recently called into question by (;erS0ii (1994) 5556- But Y 6 txts C as quo 3Middle and Neo-Platonists, as <<ben diversamente» cannot but imply. (rightly understood) are against him-

_ o BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 161

gigftgi €1£(1Ijf@E1¢lI¢ thlit liqt was that very association of verses However, that is no longer so when, on the following page

Pd“? “_’ 1C gave “Se to the Plat_°n151I1g 1nt¢rpr¢- (p. 12), we are told that Hippolytus adopted a ‘unitary context’

PC _°C @5_ 111 I116 rst place, and which has led to the for ‘physics’ and for daimonology. The position of fr. 115 is

presence ‘of an intelligible world in so many of the texts from now left undened. For since Hippolytus provides a ‘unitary

lat“ Antlqult)’ relatmg ‘O Empdocles. context’ for ‘physics’ and for daimonology, Primavesi allows that

fr. 115 could as well be placed in the Kat/mrmoi as in the Peri

Przmaz/eszs t/Jree authors P/,),5e05_

S‘ P ' 0 cN . , _

H215:d iizéigressiglggnf i€SrOglia?1m€ Ii Si) funl§lam€ntally sull’aPPartenenza di B 115 all’una od all’altra 0Pera 1i.e. the

>su sance,itis er ' - - ' '

author’s credit that he fails to put it fully into przzicticgivslignolhle Terbiifdlsiibsnoii diff)1giZ7\Z1i1‘ZlZhllj1ulf%6l;;’ile0r§i;:;dei;1T€;3lOnl dl

turns to intr1p7cluce the three authors called upon to illustrate the pp P 0 g

programme . The shlift inwording Leflects, 1 suspelot, an,inciptintI\LIinceftaintyt t t t t i

_ H110190/)/fus i)I‘ft€Crfp[€iaIt)1El(1rl:)>1: 1§mi)€ecT<5\cT§s (cofipllescicswiltlh Pfima€iI(ei;i’;sl Tiisii:

1-Iippolytus, we are told (Daimonolagia 12) adopted forickers of uncertainty over the placing of fr. 115 as part of a

Em edo 1 > < h - , . ’ proem to the Perz p/ayseos.p c es p ysics and for the daimonology of fr. 115 <<un

contesto unitario» That was not at all the rubric that had be' en — Simplicius

initially proposed by way_of introduction to Hippolytus’ testi-mony on the page preceding (p. 11). There we had been told There 1S a similar, but rather more dangerous, shift when, one

that, on the platonising interpretation of Empedocles of which Pagg further on (D”im0”0l0gm 13)> W‘: reach S1mPl1C1uS- In

H1PP01YtuS Will be given as 3 prime exampln the daimonology Primavesi’s treatment of Simplicius, as in his treatment of

was <<parte integrante della sica» (p. 11), Priinnty is no longer Hippolytus, there is no longer the assumption (cfr. p. 11) that,

h M'ddl dN Pl t i inter retation of Em edocles,given to ‘physics’ when Hippolytus in fact makes his début (p. on t 6 6 an 60' a 01,1 C P _ , P

12). A unitary context’ that would be Worth f th fr. 115 will belong to the 1?erz p/oyseos. But Primavesi no longer

sumably combines ‘physics’ and daimonololéyo Witi(?:trngi5ii:_ therefore states for Simplicius, as he had done for Hippolytus,

precedence to eithen g that the evidence can be taken either way (<<...sul1a base delle

The distinction m 1- h citazioni di Ippolito non si puo ricavare nulla», p. 12); nor

hangs upon in In his g2,1€SrZ€1:ni1nilr(:(11§CEiO(:1n:g 1/Ifglizjlta jig therefore is there any longer the apparent assumption that fr.

115 ' ht ell have belon ed to either oem.Neo-Platonic interpretation of Empedocles (p. 11) Primavesi l?1gh. as W f S. . P . P . 1 .ddear] en - f_ 115 . ’ . n is treatment o imp icius, rimavesi open y consi ers

Y “Sagas I as part of the Pen P/@6605’ as he ls two ossibilities (Daimonolo ia 14)' first that fr. 115 cameb d d 'f h h' '

P Z - >

Dun {E0 Oci 1€ t mks that th€ daimonology of fr’ 115 was 1from the Peri p/Jyseos, and secondly that it came from the

part o mpe oc es’ ‘fisica’ and that th ‘f ' ’ f ' ' . . . .

< - , € lslca Ound its Plaw in K t/9 moz. But ver curiousl the belief that the Perz p/1)/seasthe P/zyszka. 4 4”” > Y Y>

and the Kat/mrmoi formed a doctrinal ‘unity’ is attached specif-

ically to the second possibility, not the first. If Simplicius placed

fr. 115 in the Kat/aarmai, so we are told, it was because he

‘O7 I leave aside here a fourth text a scholion on Hesi0d’s T/aeo ' ‘ ' ' '

- . . . ’ . gvny attributed believed that the Perz /7 seos and the Kat/aarmoz formed a uni .

to Proclus (Dazmonologza 13), since it merely repeats (in language heavily reminiscent P y tyof Plotinus) what we can learn from the other three authors quoted (our souls I

> - . I C" . , . . . .

sumably therefore Empedocles daimones, issue from a higher world into the worls of SimPl1C10 d¢V¢ aver C0n51der3t9 la d=11m0n01<>g1@1 C la F151‘

sense).. . . . .

ca di Empedocle come parte di un medesimo sistema: 0 (1)

162 DENIQ o»BRn;N EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 163

egli trovava il fr. 115 tra i P/1)/sika, oppure (ii), se prendeva I belong to one or other poem _(P- _12)' In h1s_ account ofB 115 dai Kat/uzrmoi, era convinto che i P/Jysi/ea e la daimo- Simplicius (pp. 13-14), he rather inclined to the View that per-nologia dei Karharmoi costituissero di fatto una unita. haps, after all, they are better placed in the Kat/Jarmoz. But there(Dimonalogm 14)

1 is, naturally, a certain reluctance to take the final step, to cut theumbilical cord that still ties Primavesi’s understanding of

at Ptesehtattoh Qt S1h1Phe1t15 thought 15 Suteh’ th°g1ea1- F01 Empedocles to the theory that would have allowed one of ourit does not at all follow that Simplicius would not have thoughtI longer fragments to fill the yawning gap revealed at tbe begin-

h ht at t e two Poems totmed 3 11111tY it the htst hYP°the315 and If ning of the Perip/1)/seas. After all, is the severance really necessary?not the second were true, and if therefore Simplicius had thought In the initial (unpublished) version of Primavesfs thesis,11131 1116 V¢15e5 0111- 115 We1e 1111<e11 110111 the P@"1P/1)’5@05- Plutarch’s allusion in the De exilio to a ‘prelude’ uttered at theI d . . . , . , - -n eed, that was precisely the assumption present in beginning of Empedocles philosophy (De exzlzo, cap. I7, 6117Primavesi’s opening statement on the nature of the Neoplatonic e_e1) was the main support for placing fr. 115 at I116 beglnnmg@V1<1@11¢@» 01 W111¢11 51111111161115 1011115 3 1113101 P311 11 We W616 of the Peri p/1)/seas. There are no friends like old friends, somefaithful to Primavesi’s initial rubric, whereby <<i testi daimono-

- friendly Spirit must have whispered in l1iS 6211- P¢f11¥=1P5 1311113161110g1C1 C011I1¢5$1 3 B 115 appartengwo 31 P/Y)/51'/e¢l>> (P- 11), 111311

A can be called on again in one’s hour of need, when confrontedW6 <30L11<1 11aPP11Y 1>@11¢V@ 110111 11181 S1111P11C111$ 10111111 11- 115 111 with the increasing probability that fr. 115 should, after all, bethe Peri 10/2)/seas and that he was convinced that <<i P/oysika e la dai- plaeetl in the Kat/uzrmoi. Perhaps PlL1tarC11 C311 @356 1116 P3111 Qtmonologia dei Kat/uzrmoi costituissero di fatto una unita» (p. 14). Separation, Perhaps Plutarch can be Callfl UP011 101 1111‘? wgg@S_-

T116 511111 111 P1¢5@111a11011 (“$6 P1@11¢1@Va B 115 (131 tion that, even if the verses did in fact belong to the Kai‘/oarmoz,K41/16"’"101; IS1111P11¢10l 618 ¢0I1V11110 C116 1 P/?)’5l1e 6 13 C131" they could still have served as an introduction to the Perz p/0)/seas.monologia dei Katharmoi costituissero di fatto une unita») For a brief moment, the circle has been almost squared._ Inbetrays, I would suggest, Primavesi’s own increasing uncertainty

; the best of all possible worlds, fr. 115 CafI1<‘1 110111 1116 11@g11111111_Sover the position of fr. 115. Instead of supposing that theI of the Peri 11;/Jyseos. Hence the rst possibility that Plutarchs evi-

Neoplatonic interpretation of Empedocles requires the fragmentI denee is summoned to support, D¢ll'm0"0/031,4 121to be placed in the Peri pk)/seas (p. 11), or perhaps in one or

other poem (p. 12), Primavesi is now coming round to the view il frammento B 115 pr_0vi¢n¢ <1ag1i $16551 P/Uflk C111 C111 P10‘that the Neoplatonic interpretation of Empedocles, at least as it vengonole citazioni <11 111080113 111111111111? ed em eoheeatt’ alappears in Simplicius (p. 14), is rather to be associated with the 101° h11Z‘°'position of fr. 115 in the Kat/mrmoi.

.

But, even if that were not so, the same verses could still have served_ pjumm/,

as an introduction to the Peri];/0)/seas. Hence the second possibil-ity that Plutarch’s evidence is called upon to support, z'[7z'a'.:A further step in the same direction, or so I would surmise,

appears in the account that Primavesi gives of the rst author in ___5e ptoveniva dai Kat/4arm0i, questi, agli OCC111 <11 P1111a1C°>his group of Middle and Neo—Platonic writers, namely Plutarch costituivano come l’introduzione, se possibile perfino il fone(Daimono/ogzkz 11-12). damento sistematico della losofia naturale esposta neiIf I have succeeded in reconstructing aright the genesis and P(’)’11'e‘1-sequence of his ideas on Empedocles, then Primavesi had started f f 115by hoping (Daimonologia 10-11) that the verses of fr. 115 would In either case, what counts is the content. The versesoh r.form a proem to the Peri p/1)/seas. In his treatment of Hippolytus, were, so to speak, pr§$¢11I 31 1116 begmmng Qt the Pe”P yteot’ InPrimavesi came round to the idea that the verses might as well $191111» 111101 111 tact» ‘bid-1

—' —— > ~~- — — -—— »*~~—-—~------_.-*7-—-—¢ W W t _ t_..t _ ___

164 DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 165

in. entrambi i casi Plutarcio ha supposto ‘che B 115 dalpunto The Sphere is therefore Still taken, as On the Neoplatonicall "ISM 46/ Canfmufv [Pf1maV¢51$_ OWI1 1taliCS] ppartiene al interpretation, to be the goal and destiny of the exiled daimon,Contest‘) delta ttlosotta natutate ttt EmP@d°¢l¢- 9 but the description of the Sphere (fr. 29) is no longer held to be

, V compatible with the description of <<the blessed ones» whose

The Wortymg gat’ betwttm P/7)’”'t“ anft ttstca has b¢¢n Cl°5¢d- company the daimon has been forced to forego in fr. 115. TheEven if fr. 115 not come from.the P/zysi/ea’, it Was, aftcr all, description of the Sphere was taken from the Peri p/ayseos, and

Stttt Ptttt Qt the 5tC3- was therefore part of Empedocles’ esoteric teaching. The tale ofthe exiled daimon in fr. 115 was part of his exoteric teaching,

A Z”/70”)’ new t/76515 1 and has therefore to be placed in the Kat/mrmoi.

But now a new day deWnS_ Fe 115 is no longer part of the Perl. Even so, the oetus homo does not give up vvithout a strug-

P/f”)é5"0>i>1i1;FPirit OI‘ ttt rittt. Qttitt titt ttttt_ttty.T1tt tittttttttttittgy 31:18vf§:§§-Fifi; Ejtytfggcgfi31$; i<§f;1;gt§§§§i 55;:

O Orms-parte a-System thatls distinct tt°“? that 9&1.“ l h th t ft ll th d ' n of fr. 115 even if he canP /7 D Z 1’ orn ope a,a era, e aimo ,erzp yseos( azmono ogza 7) and 1S even incompatible with it. no longer actually be placed in the Peri lo/zyseos, might at least

N H f - tt . it still find a foothold there.e 0 S ero della fisica non ce posto per la trasgressione

individuale di singoli daimones descritta nella daimonologia , _ _ . . . .

essoterica [Sc of fr. 115]_ (Daimon010gia 63) certo, sarebbe, se necessario, immaginabile che gl1.€SO[€I'lo1

P/2)/sz/ea fossero introdotti da un proemio che, quasi a susci-

- -> . . . tare l’ade uata dis osizione d’animo, offriva la versione esso-The death-blow to all Primavesis earlier hopes is dealt in the - g - P - - - -

. terica della daimonologia, prima che, nella parte principalenal words of the article (p. 63): , - - - - - -

dell opera, ed in connessione sistematica con la dottrina dei

principi e la cosmologia, fosse sviluppata la daimonologiala differenza tra le due opere [i.e. the Kat/aarmoz and the Perl csotericam (Dal'm0n0[0gl'a 16)

pk)/seos], obliterata per ragioni sistematiche dal medio- e neo-latonismo si ‘ di t t ' ' _ - - - -

P. d , e {nos fa a nuovameme Condmont’ ntctssa But the noous homo insists on a total victory. The daimonologyria a un a eguata interpretazione della filosoa empedoclea. of ft 115 must be expelled from the Peri Pb)/560$ and relegated’

. . , in its entire to the Kat/zarmoi.ghe goples, the dreams, of a unitary interpretation of ty’

. . . .

Pt QC ts’ of a Ntioptatontc tntgtpttttatton Wtthottt the Ma dato che at communque certo che Empedocle, oltre agli

Neoplatomsm’ haV€ gone tot good‘ esoterici P/1)/si/ea, scrisse anche gli essoterici Kat/mrmoi, e che

centrambe le opere contenevano una daimonologia, allora

Esoteric 7/ertut exoterlt chiaramente sono i Kat/mrmoi ad avere maggior titolo per

- . vedersi assegnata la daimonologia essoterica di B 115.\X/hat can possibly have caused so dramatic an upheaval in (Dal-monologl-416)Primavesis Empedoclean universetos? The ostensible reason for "

P ' " ' _ ' . . . .

ttmawsts dtatttc about ttttn may at tttst seem 3 Sttght °n¢- The die 1S cast. Fr. 115 belongs exclusively to the Kat/mrmoz.Primavesi has discovered — as others had done before him — thatthere is a difference between Empedocles’ esoteric teaching, infh¢ PM P/vyseos, and 111$ exotenc teachlngt in the Kat/%lrmoi‘°9. titttt titt tiitttttttiott had btttt ttttttttittti upon by Bidez (1894) 161-162, by ottit

(1898) 406-411, and by Kingsley (1995) 359-570 (chapter 23: <<Conceal my words

in your breast»). Bidez wrote, with admirable prescience, p. 162: <<]e suis loin de nier

108 56¢ 3150 § I ab0V¢ (II1Ff0dUCIi0I1)- la justesse de cette distinction [ta entre l’enseignement ésotérique et exotérique]. Mais

109 t-A5 0fh@fS had (10116 b@f0r€ him’: Primavesi points out, Daimonologia 5 n_11, il ne faudrait pas croire qu’en Yappliquant ici, on supprimerait toutes les difficultés».

. "1 NHT "W '1 he ‘T W T Tihe TM T T TvTvT—"w_~T_T-Tun“166 DEN15 O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 167

Die]: and Prz'ma1/esi own selves, sharing the hearth and supping at the table of theh h ' l f t f th Kat/mrmoi, as they are toPrimavesi is, as he should be, sparing with his adverbs. When he gods)’ t (in t 6 essenna ha ures O 6f d‘ h d" fS' dD'l,hvebeencon-uses one, he does so carefully and with deliberation. It must Fe O3? in t 6 e moms O rem an T S a_ , _ irmetherefore have cost him a good deal to write as he has done in

the final sentence of his article (quoted above): The two dal-monologl-as

la differenza tra le due opere [i.e. the Kat/uzrmoi and the Peri Where then is the promise of a new beginning? Unless Primavesi}>/v)/$60!], Obliterata per ragioni sistematiche dal medio- e ne0— can answer that question, then the disdainful tone of the open-platonismo, si e dimostrata nuovamente condizione necessa- ing pages Qf the article will appear only as SO much empty /7)/57”l'&ria ad un’adeguata interpretazione della losofia empedoclea. Qnce Diels’ edition of the Kat/Jarmoi has been, in its essentials,

restored, what can Primavesi do to mark the bright, new world<<Nuovamente»: the addition of the adverb shows how conscious of Empedoclean scholarship as his own?Primavesi is of the faei that his ihevvi ihieihieiaiieh Of Hope stirs. The essential features of Diels’ grouping of frag-E d 1 . k . . .

.mPe ee es tis s aPPeaiihg to the aveiage ieatiei as in essehtiais ments in the Kat/rwzrmoz have been restored. The supposed ideo-no different from the Empedocles that is to be found in the edi- legieal Opposition between the Kat/aarmoi and the Peri physeostions of Stein and Diels, despite the /aauteur that was implicit in Whieh that division is Supposed to imply has been, tardily butd h Peveiv vvei t at iimavesi had vviitieh eh the siihieei of these rmly embraced There can be only one solution' sipeccas peccatW0 etiitiehs eati)’ Oh ih his attieie (D¢ll'm0"0/Ogli 7-8)- fortiter. Instead of seeking'to attenuate the apparent disparityih his eativ Pages (PP- 7'8): Primavesi eveh gees se fat as between the two poems, take the disparity a step further. Createl k k hto oo as ance at t ose simple souls who venture to speak of the __ disenvet _ for the Pgrilp/7)/5603 its own daimonology. Revive, SOPeri 10/1)/seas and the Kat/aézrmoi as though Diels’ division of the tn speak, the hope that had been abandoned. Restore the unityfragments between the two poems were a zit accompli. At that between ‘physies’ and dgtimonology, but do so by accentuating

' hstage in t e argument, the implication of Primavesi’s remarks the difference between the Peri]?/9)/seas and the Kat/Jarmoi Addwill have been taken by the average reader to be that Diels’ reign a new ddnnonology tn the Peri 10/Jyseos, a daimonology that Willwas now over, and that a new power had appeared on the hori- be independent of the KatharmoiZ0h- The ttiiihg ihastet Of the Eihpetieeieah tihivetse (Dieis) One can almost hear the siren voices Grant the Dielsianvvetiiei he Ovetthtevvh h)’ a hevv Pevvet (PtiIhaVesi?), Wh0 Wetiiti separation of the Peri p/2)/seas and the Kat/Jizrmoi. But avoid thehiihg ihie heihg a hevv ahei ieveihiiehaiv eiivisieh Oi the hag” charge of merely restoring the past Avoid the disgrace of revert-ments, and thereby a wholly new understanding of the World Of in to the division between the two poems established in the. . g . -EihPe<i°eies ahei Of the teiatiehshll? hetweeh the tvve P0eh"1s- nineteenth century and so decried at the end of the twentieth.

And now, What do We nd? Primavesfs divlsion of frag- Do so, by setting up a new and different daimonology whichments between the two poems is strangely familiar. Indeed, is it will be peculiar to the Peri p/Jyseos. TWO poems and tW0 dai-d'ffvery .1 erent, in its essentials, from that of Diels? For once fr. mgnglggicg, A daimonology that is incompatible With the P577115 has been confirmed in its position in the Kat/mrmoi, and P/1)/5505 (Diels can rest safely in his grave), and a daimonologyh b . . . . . i

. . - . ' ‘ 'as rought with it, in its train so to speak, two of perhaps the that 1S compatible with the Perl p/1)/seas only because it is incom-most moving and most brilliant fragments of Empedocles (frag- patible with the daimonology of the KM/%l1”m0l' 110-ments 136 and 137: the description of ‘human’ sacrice, theplga to mankind no longer to and devour their Very Own iii’ Primavesi writes of the ‘difference’ between the two daimonologieskith and kin), and once there has been added to that series of (Dd,-mam,/0g,~a 63) and of one daimonglogy being ‘distinct’ from the otherfI'é1gII1€I1tS the p1‘OIT1iS€ offuture l)liSS 1472 tl1C piCIL1I‘€ OfOL11‘ (Daimono/ogia 17, quoted in full immediately below). But Primavesi’s two dai-

168 DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 169

X. The new scholia T/75 t/qrggguret

P”-maven-3 ((;,yP0t;m.l-my syllogism» Primavesi’s study of the new scholia makes. interesting reading.

From the two gures found in the scholia themselves (<<1OO

The promise of a new dawn has been fullled, or nearly so. All times» and <<6O times»), Primavesi conjures a third gure, thethat is needed is the material for the new daimonology. That difference between the two. He therefore arrives at three guresthere was a daimonology - or at least that there was talk of dai- in all: <<10O times», <<6O times», <<4O times».mones — in the Peri p/1)/seas is guaranteed by fr. 59. But what However, after following the mild contortions required toevidence is there to show that the daimones of fr. 59 possessed, produce those three gures (Daimono/ogia 43-49), and theso to speak, their own daimonology, a daimonology that was dif- rather more elaborate contortions (z'bz'd., pp. 49-54) required toferent from, and even incompatible with, the daimonology of adapt those gures, in so far as they can be adapted, to Aristotle’sthe Kat/mrmoi? evidence on Empedocles in the Physics and the De genemtione et

The answer to that question Primavesi thinks he has found corruptione (the two treatises which the scholia have beenin the scholia that Rashed, in the nick of time, has turned up in attached to), the simple-minded reader (myself) will want toa Byzantine manuscript of the 12th centurym. Rashed’s newly know quite how the result is meant to bear upon the revelationdiscovered scholia have therefore had thrust upon them an awe- of a new, ‘esoteric’, daimonology, different from the ‘exoteric’some responsibility. On the interpretation of those scholia there daimonology of fr. 115.falls the full weight of Primavesi’s claim to have discovered a new For, even granted that the three gures are as Primavesi has

daimonology, peculiar to the Peri p/vysevs stated them, and even granted that the resulting division of theThat at least is what we are told in the strangely entitled successive stages of the ‘cosmic cycle’ are as Primavesi supposes

<<hypothetical syllogism>> enunciated on p. 17 of Primavesi’s that the figures require them to be, even so, what is the relevanceDaimonologiaz of that reconstruction to the establishment of a second dai-

monology?...verranno esposti, sulla base di testi scoperti recentemente, Granted that the interpretation of the scholia taken over byargommti 3 favore ddla “Isl ¢h@ EmP@d°Cl¢> a°¢‘1m° Qua Primavesi changes the relative lengths of the successive stages ofdaimonologia di B 115, abbia professato anche all’interno thg cosmic cycle from What they might Otherwise havg beendei P/1 sika una daimonolo ia com tib'l l d '

. .7 . . .g . pa, 1 e Con . a Ottmia thought to be (a concession, let me emphasise, that I make pure-dei principi e la cosmologia di quest opera, daimonologiah . . d , d. . H ly argumenti causa), even so, what is the corresponding changeC €, in qL1ant0 CSOtCflCa, €V €SS€fC lstlnta Cla qu@ Z1 €$SOtC-rica dd ft B 11511; that ‘has to be effected in the daimonology that is supposedly

restricted to the Perl p/9)/seas?

Not only has that question not been answered. It is not a

_ , , ‘ question that has been clearly asked. For Primavesi never quitemonologies are not only different and distinct’; they are also ‘incompatible’. SeeDazmonologuz 16: << [la] daimonologia della sica empedoclea, proprio a causa della sua gets round t0 telling us (Certainly not in so many Words) exactlyintegrazione nel ciclo cosmico, non e conciliabile con la daimonologia rappresentata' B 115 .

In m“F0f 8 deSCfipti0n Ofthe manuseript, see Rashed (2001) 131 sqq., and for the Primavesi will examine <<quali condizioni debbano soddisfare sia la sica, sia la dai-

text and interpretation of one scholion, 1'/vid. 142-145. For a different interpretation monologia empedoelee, Per POWY @55¢_F¢_i11P¢8Y?1t'3_ln un med¢§im° 5i5t¢ma”- The CM‘of the scholion, and for other scholia, see Rashed’s article in the present volume. culty with that ‘hypothesis’, if Sl1Cl1 It 15, 18 that If leads F0 dlfifent Concluslons for

U2 The Sentences I have quoted and the paragraph from which they are taken the two poems. The ‘conditions’ are fullled for the Peri p/1)/sear, not fullled for theare said to be cast <<in the form of a hypothetical syllogism» (Daim0n0l0gi 17). I can- Kat/aarmoi. But whether the Kat/Jarmoi fail to meet the conditions set out innot myself see anything in these lines that the average reader would recognise as a ‘syl- Primavesi’s ‘hypothesis’ (i) because they fail to reconcile physicsnand daimonology, orlogism’, and precious ittle that could be construed as an ‘hypothesis’. In the initial (ii) because they have a daimonology and not a physics, or (iii) because their dai-(unpublished) version of Primavesi’s <<hypothetical syllogism», there was at least a sen- monology is not the same as the daimonology of the Peri p/1)/reos, are all questionstence with a conditional clause. In the published version, we are told merely that which Primavesi’s <<hypothetical syllogism» appears to leave in abeyance.

i '“" ' ” " " """"'""""”""""'""‘"W"" "“““'"" W -----—--~ - » - - ,,_,.a......,.._....__,. _ _ . _.._._._e____

170 DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE Two POEMS 171

what the differences are between the two daimonologies; nor mind», and not with the <<eyes» of the body, even if, in anothertherefore does he tell us just what it is in the daimonology of the i fragment, Empedocles uses a verb of ‘vision’ (oTt(i)Tt0q.L8v) forPerl p/2)/seas that sets it apart from the daimonology of the the perception that We have of both Love and Strife (fr. 109).Katparmoi. But unless we know how the daimonology of the 1 But what are We to make of the earlier part of the fragment?P672 10/1)/seas is thought to differ from that of the Kat/uzrmoi, then Quite how are we intended to envisage the nature of the worldwe are hardly in a position to see how the difference, Whatever from which the daimon has been exiled? How, and where, are

it may be, has been brought to light by the three figures that we to envisage the abode of the <<blessed ones», whose companyPrimavesi has taken from, or added to, the scholia. the daimon has had to forego (v. 6)? And what are the implica-

5 tions of the singular tig (v. 5), when Empedocles first describesM)/t/J and non-myth

1 the <<pollution» that will lead to the exile of the daimon? Since

Primavesi does of course expatiate on the obvious differences iidljimlfnes» {$0131 app?“ in the plgral 5 Sqq')’btlh€ daingolcll

between the Sphere, when the elements have been made <<one» O as Su er? “PO uticin» (V' ) Wi pmsuma Y not Inb LOW (cfn ft 29) and th€ mm. E d 1 h Id himself alone in being driven out from the company of <<the

Y , p ise mpe oc es o s out- - - . blessed ones» v. 6 . But does this mean that all the daimones

that, at the end of our various incarnations, we shall be admit- ( ) ,ted to <<share the hearth and share the table of the immortals, are evmtuany ex-ikd’ or that S-ome’ so to Speak’ itay b€hind'freed from human (fr. 147 . h Cl , ~ If all the daimones are‘ exiled, are they all exiled at the same

Stmmat IV 150,1 [H 51425-9 S€‘itn]). emmts ¢°mm@mafY> time, so that for all the daimones the time of exile (the <<thirtY

. . . . thousand seasons» of v. 6 runs concurrentl ? If not how are

Tables Fmd hearths am O.bV1OuSlY mC9mpauble Wlth a non’ the <<seasons» of the individual daimon’s exileisynchroiiised withcosmic eriod of total it h h l d' . . .p un y, w ic is aso, accor ing to , ,Aristotle, a time when all movement has ceased“. One may th€- dlffimnt Sktlaggsi Off}; iosmlc Eyck-' Of ls timm pfrlhiips 11110

readil allow indwd who Id P h h universa sync ronism. t e sync ronism is on y partia , o t eou want to cont t. — - - - -

d -Y - F 1 f . €S. t at t € daimones perhaps all start their exile at the same time, but doescri tion o our re ease th _

trayedpin fr 147 is inrtonclh. e Q1916 Oflncarlliftifns’ ti por some daimones perhaps release themselves from their <<trusting»- , ra i iona imagery, w 1C cou per- - - , - -

ha S be ada ted to < Id , . . h _ in Strife (cfr. v. 14) before others do. Can the full period of thiro en a e at som t

hp f P h g g 6 um: In t 6 past or In ty thousand seasons perhaps be shortened for daimones who,t e uture wit in ac clics stem th ' ' ' ' _ . . .e . . -

. . Y Y _ ’ e dlstmfnon ls only rela presumably following Empedocles’ in}unctions, succeed in puri-UW)’ but which Could not b6 hterany tum In a World of no fyin themselves and who therefore even now a ear as <<seers»movement and of n l 1' g ’ pp

O ura.l[y' . and doctors> and <<leaders of men (fr. 146 1-2) alread on theRather more delicate is the question of how far the same threshold Ofidivinisation (V_ 3)? » Y

style of imagery is present in fr. 115.The ' t f th d ' - - - - - -

tossed from sk h h d b pliuf O1 6 almon with sufficient ingenuity, we might perhaps succeed inh . Y’ O Sea’ to an ’ am Y a t 6 € nems and answering those (and other) questions But even if we do what

at ome in none, can well be t k l' ' ' - ' ’- ’a 6n as a lteral dcscnpnon of thf: are we to make of the lan ua e in the o enin two verses of the

present state of our mortal selves. It is true of course that - g g » P gnot 15%, daim B E d 1 ll h. . . We can fragment? Are the”<<decree» (\|m(pto|.L0c) and the <<broad_oat,hs»

ones ut mpe oc es te s is disciple to <<see»- . , , , , (1t7toi'cssooi [...] opxotg) of fr. 115 (vv. 1-2) as mythical as

Love “With the mind» (ft 1221: WW GU V009 SEPKEU)’ and the hearths and tables of fr. 147?<<not sit there goggle-eyed with wonder>> ( '5 '41.: 1'15’ 6 - - -,6O Mb 1 L ll Ill-w‘°'W We might perhaps think so. But, if we do, then the whole11 Tl Q. emaywe sup osetattesam " ' - - - -would apply Theyl? 5&1: 1‘1:,li?l111C<t(1£1: pancoramao that PI'lIT1E1V€Slflays befcgireous (f)fllm0n0l0gzadl 6-1(7) of

an esoteric poem ree rom tra itiona imagery an an exo

teric’ poem designed for popular consumption dissolves before

"3 C51 O’Bri@n (1969) 4-45 (¢hapr@r2)- our very eyes. For, as noted earlier (§ III above), the <<broad

"—*"—~

~—---——--—-»~--——--—---—--1-—---—----»----~»--—-~—-~--w--—‘—------—---—-—--—-------- ~ -»- --~----~ »- - - - -—-—-~---»--~ -~ - - ¢ — v--~---»--~-'-~-~-~--~--~—-—'--- - --- - - -I --»~-~-- -~-~ - ---»-» - ---» -- » v - - - - »- - - »- ~ ---------—--W - —~------—

172 DENIS O’BRIEN .EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND TI-IE Two POEMS 173

oaths» of fr. 115,2, reappear, only in the singular, in the Peri ures establish that the two ‘daimonologies’ were different — or

p/ayseos (fr. 30,3: TE7t0t’CéOQ [...] opicoo). The frontier between even that they Wett tht Same? _

‘mythical’ and non-mythical, between ‘exoteric’ and ‘esoteric’, is For whatever the lengths, in absolute terms, ofthe different

perhaps not quite as watertight as Primavesi would have his StageS in the eosrr_11e_eyele, the difficulties in reconciling the tworeaders believe; poems, the description of cosmic unity and immobility in one

poem, tables and hearths in the other, remain exactly as they

Doug“ and 6[,g‘@u[;,'e5'__ always were. The onlydiscrepancy the figures recorded in the

newly discovered scholia might possibly reveal would be a dis-

Thtst att but 3 tew Qt the doubts and dttCt1lti¢5> of the Pmb" crepancy between, I repeat, the <<times» of the scholia and thelems and questions, that beset the mind of any conscientious <<5@a5Qn5» of fr. 115. But no such discrepancy arises on thereader of Empedocles’ fragments“. But are these the questions interpretation of the scholia in fact adopted by Primavesi, in histo which Primavesi’s distinction between the two daimonologies attempt to ¢stab1iSh a MW and different and incompatibk ‘deli-

is intended to provide an answer? If they are, then the relation monglogy’ fgr the Peri physeas.

between question and answer remains clouded in obscurity.For however we may juggle with the figures recorded in the The interpretation oft/ae scholia

newly ttttbttvttltlttt scttottat tltrt only potttnttttl dtttttttpttntty that But I have jumped the gun. That whole debate is of course pre-arises wi e t at etween t e <<times» (Xpovot) recorded in the

' fscholia on the one hand, and the <<seasons» spoken of in fr. 115 natum Inietittntlently lo the tlsintlicigytiittifl Catgvlttgtlgiiiiitk

the Othgr (V6: 6)pag)_ t e new sc o ia in reso ving, o g,

If - - - ferences there may be between the two poems, the careful schol-we try to synchronise the successive stages of the cosmic- - - - ar will want to start from an examination of the scholia them-

cycle with the exile and return of the errin daimon then there - -

. . . . g ’ . selves. What do the scholia in fact mean?could well be, in principle, a discrepancy between the <<times»

' ' ' ' h d d h lrelating to the cycle (100, 60, perhaps 40), as recorded in or It the tntctptttatton that ttttttttttttttt at tt tltpttt t tt on Y

. . . inter retation ossible. Is it even the most natura interpretationdeduced from the scholia, and the <<seasons» relating to the exile P P

' h dd d hof the daimon (all 30,000 of them) which are spoken of in fr. Qt th-6 Wtttttt that out ttnttttymtttts tthohtttt at tt tt to t tt

’ fA l ?

115. But precisely that discrepancy has been carefully, and delib- matgi;;t:)rttfnt;,ttat1tgtvt,(__t; totftgtetqugstions’ the readgr will have toeratel avoided in the inter ret ti n f h h l' h - - - -

Y’ P a O O t tr SC Ola t at wait for the next thrilling instalment of my thoughts onPrimavesi has adopted. The <<thirty thousand seasons» of fr. 115 Empedocles, Soon to be published in Fmnch und th¢ title A [4are taken to be the same as the <<hundred times» to be found in recherche a/»Empéa/ode, agmmts at tém0ignag€S115_

one scholion, while the <<hundred times» are taken to be part ofthe same system as the <<sixty times» and the <<forty times» foundin, or deduced from, other scholia (Daimonalogia 49-54).

The question therefore again arises: how are the figuresgiven in the scholia thought to be evidence for a ‘daimonology’that is not only different from, but incompatible with, the dai-

monology of the Kat/yarmolt HOW do th€ newly discovemd g’ 115 Iwrite of the interpretation that Primavesi has ‘adopted’ of the scholia, since

he tells us, Daimonologia 51 n. 151, that his is the same as the interpretation that was

put forward by Rashed <<independently>>. Primavesis use of the adverb presumably

does not imply that the relationship is symmetrical. It would be strange if Rashedhad

reached his conclusion <<independently» of Primavesi, and if, at the same time,

114 Essentially the same points are rehearsed in the concluding pages of O’Brien Primavesi had reached the same (fairly complex) interpretation independently of(1995) 465-468. Rash<-:d-

174 DENI5 0’BR11-‘IN EMPEDOCLES; THE WANDERING DAIMON AND TI-IE TWO POEMS 175

BIBLIOGRAPHY Rettationis omnium haeresium lihrorttm a’ecem quae supersant,

recensuerunt, latine verterunt, 110135 a<11666fL1111 L- D- 61 11- G- 5-,Amann (1927) Gottingae 1859.E. Amann, Marcion, in Dictionnaire tie théologie catholique, IX (1927), cc. Gcrson (1994)

2009-2032.L. P. Gerson, Plotinas, London-New York 1994.

Bailey (1947) v1 G'lb t (190 )

C. Bailey (ed.), Titi Lucreti Cari, De reram natura lihri sex, edited with Q1 Erilbem /Dig metgoralogigc/yen T/Jearien des griechischen Altertums,prolegomena, critical apparatus, translation, and commentary by C. 1 Lgipzig 1907,B., ll.,Qfd14.

3 V0 X or 9 7 Gosse (1907)B16161 (1894)

if E. Gosse, Father anti son, a study oftwo temperaments, London 1907 (rstJ. Bidez, La hiographie a"Empe'a’ocle, in Recaeil ole traoaax pahliés par la published anonymously).

Faculte a'e Phzlosophze et Lettres tie l ’universite' ale Gantl, fascicule 12, Guthrie (1962)

Gand1894' W. K. C. Guthrie, A history of Gree/e philosophy, vol. 1, The earlierBlass and Debrunner (1961) Presocratics and the Pythagoreans, Cambridge 1962.F. Blass, Grammatih des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch, bearbeitet von Harnack (1924)

Alb<-grt Debrunngr, Gijttinggn 196111, A. von Harnack, Marcion: elas E1/angelzum vom emclen Gott, ‘£2716’

Monographie zur Geschichte cler Grunellegung tier Katholzschen Kzrche,Bollack (1965)

- -Leipzig 1924.]. Bollack, Empéeiocle, I. Introduction a l ’anczenne physique, Paris 1965.

Horna (1930)Bollack (1969) , - - C. Horna, Empeclocleum, W5 48 (1930), P11 3-11-]. Bollack, Empédocle, II. Les origines, Edition et traduction des fragments

» ' - - - - 1 d (1992)et des temolgnagiisi HI‘ Les Origin“, Commmmlre I 2’ Pans 1969'

1 Bn.VlIi(i\(ivood, The poem 0fEmpedocles: a text and translation with an intro-B ff ‘ (1962

1 'L1 1616 ) ciuctzon, Toronto-Buffalo-London 1992.F. Buffiere (ed.), Héraclite, I/1lle’gories tl’Homere§ texte établi et traduit par 1

F‘ B.’ Pans 1962' I8<.arKteiir:thii?3£‘i)npecloclis Agrigentini carminum reliquiae, de vita eius etDiels (1879) studiis disseruit, fragmenta explicuit, philosophiam illustravit S.

H. Diels, Doxographigraeci, collegit recensuit prolegomenis indicibusque K., in Philosophoram graecorum 2/eteram praesertim qai anteinstruxit H. D., Berolini 1879. Platonem floruerant operum reliqaiae, recensuit et illustravit S. K.,

. volumen alterum, Amstelodami 1838.Diels (1898)H. Diels, Uher die Geclichte ties Empedohles, SPA (1898), pp. 396-415. Kingsley (1995)Diels (1901) P Kings ey nczent p zosop y mystery an magic mpe oc es n.'l,/1' h'l h, ,4 tllacl

Pythagorean tradition, Qxford-New York 1995.Poetarum graecorumfragmenta, ed. U. von \)(/ilamowitz-Moellendorff, III.

- - - - K" 1 (1996)€f:Sz;";tm phzlosophoramfragmenta, ed. H. Diels, Berolini 1901. RiiEgiSn6g};l€y, Empedodes’two poems, Hermes 124 (1996), pp. 108-111.

ie s. . . . LS

H. D1615’ Die Fmgmmte def 1/brsokmnken Balm 19031. H.]G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. S. ]ones, A Greek-English lexicon, OxfordD’ l K 4 '16 5' 13111 (193 ) 19409. (1 have not had occasion to refer to the Supplements.)H. Diels, W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorso/eratiher, Berlin 19345.

LampeDuncker and Schneidewin (18 59) (}_ W, H, Lampe, A Patristic Gree/e lexicon, with addenda et corrigenda,L. D k d F. 9. h ' i ' ' ' ' ' 'unc er an C1 Sc neidewin, S[anctz] Hzppolytz epzscopz et martyrzs Oxford 1976.

_ ,,___ ,_ __ _. ? "WWW" ' 7V ‘T -'7 7 7 _ 7 V 7

176 DENIS o’s1u1=_N EMPEI5OCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND THE TWO POEMS 177

Long (1974) tique par D. O’Brien, en collaboration avec Frere pour la traduc-A. A. Long, Empedocles’ cosmic cycle in the ’sixties’, in A. P. D. tion francaise, Paris 1987.

Mourelatos (ed.), The Pre-socratics, a collection ofcritical essays, New O,Brien (198721)York 1974, pP- 397425

9‘ D O’Brien L’étre et l’éternite', in Etudes sur Parménide, publiées sous laMansfeld (1985)

‘ direction de Pierre Aubenque, 11. Prohlemes dinterprétation, Paris]. Mansfelcl, Review of O’Brien Pour interpreter Empédocle, Mnemosyne, 1987, pp. 135-162-

s.4 38 (1985), pp. 183-188. O,Bri€n (1989)

Mansfeld (1989): D. O’Brien, Heraclitus on the unity ofopposites, 111 K- 1- Boudollfls (6 - >

J. Mansfeld, Studies in later Greekphilosophy andgnosticism, London 1989. » Ionian philosophy, Athens 1989, PP- 298503-

Marcovich (1986)A O’Brien (1990) d

M. Marcovich (ed.), Hippolytus 'Refutatio omnium haeresiumi Berlin-New-» D, O’Brien, Héraclite et l ’unité des opposes, Revue cle metaphysique et €

York 1986. morale 95 (1990). pP- 147-171-

Martin and Primavesi (1999)A ()’Brien (1991)

A. Martin, D. Primavesi, L’Empédocle de Strashourg Strasb. gr. [nu D, O’Brien, Plotinus on the origin ofmatter, an exercise in the interpreta-1665-1666), Introduction, édition et commentaire, with an English tion of the Enneads, Napoli 1991-summary, Strasbourg-Berlin-New York 1999. O,Bri€n (19913)

Miller (1851) D. O’Brien, Comment écrire lhistoire de la philosophie? Héraclitex et

E. Miller, Origenis Philosophumena sioe Omnium haeresium refutatio, e Empédocle sur l ’un et le multiple, Rue Descartes [Cahiers du Collegecodice Parisino nuncprimum edidit E. M., Oxonii 1851. international de philosopl11@l 1-2 U991)» PP- 121438‘

Obbink (1995)F D’Brien (1995) Y k

D. Qbhink, The addressees ofEmpedocles 31 (1993), pp. 51-98. D. O’Brien, Théodicéeplotinienne, théodicee gnostique, Leyden-New or -

Q’Brien (1967) Koln 1993'D. Q’Brien, Empedocles’ cosmic cycle, CQ n.s. 17 (1967), pp. 29-40. O’Brien (1995)O>Brien (1969) D. O’Brien, Empedocles revisited, 15 (1995), pP- 403470-

D. Q’Brien, Empedocles’ cosmic cycle, a reconstruction om the fragments O’Brien (1996) Ll dand secondary sources, Cambridge 1969. D. O’Brien, Empédocle, in ]acques Brunschwlg, Gcloggfg’ E- 621%

. . . . . arls pp_ - .O,Bri€n (1970) (edd.), Le saz/oirgrec ictionnaire critique

D. O’Brien, The eect ofa simile: Empedocles’ theories ofseeing and hreath- O’Brien (1997) 11 Oing, ]I-IS 90 (1970), pp. 140-179. D. O’Brien, L’Empédocle de Platon, Revue cles etudes grecques

C)’Brien (1981) U997)’ Pp' 381-398.D. O’Brien, Pour interpreter Empédocle, Leiden-Paris 1981. O’Brien (1999)

' d0 lg ' ' . . Cl (ecl.), Traditions ofO,Bri€n (1985) D. O Brien, Plato and Empe c s on evil, 1n] ] eary- ' )1 )1 D'llo , Aldershot1999, PP- 3'27-D. Q’Brien, Temps et e'ternite' dans la philosophie grecque, in Mythes et Platomsm’ Essays m MOW ofjo n Z n

representations du temps, recueil prepare’ par Dorian Tihnau, Paris O’Brien (forthcoming)1985, pp. 59-85. D. O’Brien, A la recherche d ’Empédocle, fragments et temoignagcs

O’Brien (1987), Osborne (1987) dtheD. O’Brien, Etudes sur Parménide, publiées sous la direction de P. C, Osborne, Rethinking early Greek philosophy, Hippolytus ofR0mt’ cl"

Aubenque, I. Le poeme de Parménide, texte, traduction, essai cri- Presocratics, Ithaca-New York-London 1987.

178

Osborne (1987a)

_...-,-_ -.. “*"""'~ Y"-~'~"T~~"MW "”"”"” '"'W""

1 ' 7 7 7OEMS 1 9DENIS O’BRIEN EMPEDOCLES: THE WANDERING DAIMON AND Tl-IE TWO P 7

Van der Ben (1975)C. Osborne, Empedocles recycled, n.s. 37 (1987), pp. 24-50. N. van der Ben, The proem ofEmpedocles’ Peri physios, F0“/ards 3 new edi-

Qttaviani (1998) tion of all the fragments. Thirty-one fragments edited by N. van

M. Ottaviani, Leternita in Plotino: ETAEIZ AAIAZTA TOE? Qualche rifl d“ B" Amsterdam 1975'lessione lessicale e filosoca sull’utilizzo dell ’a_ggettiz/o ci§5Li)'0'1'0c1'0v in Wendland (1916)En. HI, 7[-45/, Acme 51 (1998), pp. 213-229. P, Wendland (ed.), Hiopolytus W/erhe, 111. Reitatzo omnzum haereszum,

Panzerbieter (1844) Leipzig 1916.

/Vb F. Pazerbieter, Beitrcige zur Kriti/e und Er/eliirung des Empedohles, in \)(/jlamowitz (1929)/ \'/Einladungs-Programm des Gymnasium Bernhardinum in Meiningen, U_ Von \X/ilamgwirz-Méllendorff, Die K0l90¢Pl»l01 61155 EmP¢’d0H“> SPAMeiningen 1844.

Pradeau (2002)(1929) pp. 626-661 [Reprinted in the same author’s Kleine

Schrien, Berlin 1935, pP- 4734511-].-13. Pradeau, Heraclite, Fragments (citations et temoignages), traduction, Zuntz (1971)

introduction’ notes et bibli°8mPhi€> Paris 2002' G. Zuntz, Persephone, three essays on religion and thought in MagnaRashed (2001) Graecia, Qxford 1971.M. Rashed, Die Uherlieerungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schri De gen-

eratione et corruptione, Wiesbaden 2001.

Sandbach (1969)F. H. Sandbach, Plutarchi" Moralia, XV., Fragments edited and translat-

ed by F. I-1. 8., London 1969.

Sandys (1920)I. E. Sandys, A history ofclassical scholarship, 1. From the sixth century B. C.

to the end ofthe Middle Ages, Cambridge 19203.

Schwyzer (1959)E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatih, 1. Allgemeiner 7241, Lautlehre,

Worthildung, Flexion, Miinchen 1959.

Sedley (1989)D. Sedley, The proems ofEmpedocles and Lucretius, 30 (1989), pp. 269-

296

Sedley (1998)D. Sedley, Lucretius and the transformation of Greek wisdom, Cambridge

1998.

Stein (1852)H. Stein, Empedoclis Agrigentiniagmenta disposuit recensuit adnotavit H.

5., praemissa est de Empedoclis scriptis disputatio, Bonnae-Londini1852.

Sturz (1805)F. W. Sturz, Empedocles Agrigentinus, de vita et philosophia eius exposuit

carminum reliquias ex antiquis scriotorihus collegit recensuit illustraz/-it praeztionem et indices adiecit Mfagister] Frider[icus/7 Guil[elmus]Sturz, Lipsiae 1805.

v.-.__._-......_.-_..-_,_