Critical Note: Empedocles and His Interpreters

Author(s): Jaap Mansfeld

Source: Phronesis, Vol. 40, No. 1 (1995), pp. 109-115
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182489
Accessed: 11-01-2016 21:44 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.129.120.3 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:44:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DISCUSSION

Critical Note: Empedoclesand his

Interpreters
JAAP MANSFELD

1. Though Peter Kingsley's paper' contains a number of suggestions that are

not without some value, his reconstructionof the doxographic traditionscon-
cerned with Empedocles' four elements is not good enough. His argumentthat
Stob. Ecl. I 10 1la-b derives from the Placita tradition (i.e. from the source
called Aetius), and not from what Diels called the "Homeric allegorists", i.e.
from allegorizing treatises of the 3tEi TOV6 Ewvatype and from the com-
mentary literature,is untenable.His contention that the so-called Aetius Ara-
bus2 is not a direct translationof ps.Plutarch'sPlacita, and that D. T. Runia's
claim that this is what it is3 constitutes "an inauspicious start to a proposed
re-assessmentof the so-called doxographictradition",4is unfortunate.Writing
about sources such as these requiresa modicumof familiaritywith their Sitz im
Leben, and with the working-methodsand aims of their authors.I shall limit my
observationsto what I see as the main issues in Kingsley's paper.

2. Let us start with the Arabic translation.Anyone who compares ps.Plutarch

(hereafter P) as a whole with Daiber's German version of Qosta ibn Luqa
(hereafterQ) as a whole will see immediatelythat the latteris a translationof a
variety of the former.There are a numberof minor differences,5some attribut-
able to the translator,others to the (lost) translatedmanuscriptwhich at some
points differed from its extant Greek relatives. It is absurdto argue on the basis
of a single paragraph- in this case I 3.20 - where Q for the exegesis of the
divine names Hera and Aidoneus agrees not with P 878A and others but with
Stobaeus (hereafterS) and others, that Q translatesa source other than P. Apart
from these minor differences,6Q at I 3.20 correspondsvirtuallyword for word

' Phronesis 39 (1994) 235-54.

2
Text in H. Daiber, Aetius Arabus (Wiesbaden 1980) 92-249. Prof. Daiber wrote me a
letter dated 30.11.94 answering my questions concerning the Arabic text of the present
passage, which I cite here and in what follows with his kind permission.
3Phronesis 34 (1989) 248-9.
4Phronesis 39 (1994) 246 and n. 45.
5 A list of selected minutiaeof this natureis given by G. Lachenaud,Plutarque:cEuvres
morales T. X112, Opinionsdes philosophes (Paris 1993) 11-4.
6
And those mentionedinfra, nn. 11-12 and text thereto.

109

This content downloaded from 134.129.120.3 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:44:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
with P's Greek, and is very much differentfrom the quite extensive S passage
(Ecl. I 10 1a-b) which according to Kingsley should have been printedin the
right-handcolumn of Aetius next to P's text on pp. 286-7 of Diels' Doxographi
graeci (hereafterDG), or so it seems.
There is moreover an importantand unique Leitfehlerin the second line of
the Empedocles fragment(Vors. 31B6) quoted by P, loc. cit., and translatedby
Q, viz. ZEi,; afO#e insteadof the correctZvsi; &Qy1';found in S and the other
authors such as Diogenes Laertius who transmit this passage (D.L. loc. cit.,
[Heracl.]Alleg. ch. 24.6 and Athenag. Leg. ch. 22.1 Marcovich only quoting
lines 2-3). The text of P 878A as found at Eus. P.E. XIV xiv.6 has Zis'UiAqqg,
an unmistakablecorruptionof an original Zciv; diQ<y>ii.' Q has the loan-word
atir here, i.e. 'aether'.8
One understandshow cdOie came to replace &cQ<y>q; in our mss. of P and
the one used by Q: it is a Verschlimmbesserungderiving from the subsequent
exegesis of the first divine name at P, loc. cit.: ALca[itv yae XE'yELt1]V tyotV
xai TObvctdO*a. This is translatedby Q as "Dabei meint er mit seinem Wort
"Zeus" die Hitze und das Sieden und die Luft". Daiber points out that "die
Hitze und das Sieden" is an exaggeratingtranslationof TlV 4Emv,9 so "Hitze"
cannotbe a renderingof atOEQa."Luft" in this formulais Daiber's translation
of ar. gaww,'? which word at Q III 1.1 correspondsto P's 5t'QL, ibid. Accord-
ingly, either the Greek text used by the translatorread xai TOV tEeQa," as is
argued by Daiber, theor translatormade a (wilful?) mistake when rendering
xaL T6v at0EQa. The ancestor of his ms. at any rate must have read CO 'Q in
the fragment.If it read xai TOV &?Qa insteadof xct tov ct0EQa, this constitu-
tes a varia lectio comparableto Q's identificationsof Hera and Aidoneus.
But in rendering mntL)[a in P's exegesis of the Empedoclean formula
XQOUVWIiQa (QOT1?LV by "das menschlichePneuma"'2Q certainlydid not make
a mistake. The word sperma is replacedby an importantpartof its (originally

7 Anotherdifference in Eusebius' text here (II p. 296.2 Mras)comparedwith the mss. of

P (DG p. 287a2 = p. 58.24 Mau) is dcQX&gxaC instead of dLQXLxdg.
8 Daiber, o.c. 341.
9 Daiber, o.c. 64-5 on "exaggeratio", and glossary, 555 nr. 852.
'1 Prof. Daiber writes to me that the only ms. which is complete here (ms. Princeton)
reads the meaningless garr, but that in Arabic the letters r and w are easily confused
with each other. He points out that the conjecturegr ('warmth') instead of hr has to be
rejected,because this would imply (a) that the Arabictranslatorrendereda single word,
viz. tfotv, with no less than three synonyms, somethinghe never does, and (b) that xai
Tbv cda0xa (or xcTi o6v dcQa) was lacking in his Greek text. As to Q's version of the
meaning of the divine name Aidoneus, "die Luft" renders another Arabic word, viz.
hawa, which Prof. Daibertells me is the more common equivalentof dtL.
" For Zeus = air see e.g. Philemon fr. 91.4 Kock at Stob. Ecl. I 1, p. 39, 13 and I 10, p.
121.3 W. (also quoted at Achilles p. 83.8 Maass, with subsequentexegesis).
12 al-ruh al-basari. P has To O(YtQfaU XCilb ObOWQ = Q "das menschliche Pneuma und
das Wasser".

110

This content downloaded from 134.129.120.3 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:44:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Stoic) definition, see e.g. AniusDidymus fr. 39 Diels ap. Eus. P.E. XIV xx.l, lo
6Eborui,Rta Tq&LV6 Zivwv 6
CtVQl[VaL0E06V aVfwtog 7[vis [L0' byoovi
and the other texts printed at SVF 1 128. Prof. Daiber suggests that this may
derive from a marginalgloss in the Greek text. Another possibility is that the
text itself had been adapted,for the series of definitions in the Medical Defini-
tions ascribed to Galen show that this had become the standardview.'3 The
Placita were a much-usedhandbook,and such handbookswere always subject
to revisions and alterations.'4The divergingexplanationsof the names Hera and
Aidoneus found in P and Q are a case in point. The evidence at our disposal
does not permitus to establish what explanationwas providedby Aetius. Either
the ancestor of our mss. of P or the ms. used by Q must have been modified
here. Even the fact that Achilles (who is not - pace Diels in the DG - depend-
ent on P but on an earlierversion of the Plac.) at p. 31.16 Maass agrees with Q
(Hera = earth, Aidoneus = air) is not decisive; Achilles moreover does not
quote the Empedocles fragment.Athenag. Leg. ch. 22.1 M. on the other hand,
who as to this partof the exegesis agrees with S, clearly does not derive from a
Placita source.

3. We may now turn to S I 10, and startby looking at the chapteras a whole.
This cento falls into two main parts accordingto a rule often followed by S in
the first book of the Eclogae; he first has a poetic section but then changes tack
and continues with a collection of prose abstracts.S I 10 begins (pt. 1) with a
number of poetic or quasi-poetic'5quotations ending with Emp. fr. B6 at I
10.1 la. The quotationof this enigmatic fragmentis immediatelyfollowed - the
lemma (<kXoiTOaQxog)having been interpolatedby Wachsmuth'6- by a prose

"3 See four of the five definitions of sperma at [Gal.] Def med. XIX pp. 370.17-71.3 K.
(partlyprintedat SVF II 742) with the comments of J. Kollesch, Untersuchungenzu den
pseudo-galenischenDefinitiones Medicae (Berlin 1973) 95-6.
14 Cf. my 'Doxography and Dialectec. The Sitz im Leben of the "Placita"', ANRWII

36.4 (Berlin/New York 1990) 3061, my 'Physikai doxai and problemataphysika from
Aristotleto Aetius (and Beyond)', in W. W. Fortenbaughand D. Gutas,eds., Theophras-
tus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings,RUSCH V (New Brun-
swick/London 1992) 82-4, and Lachenaud,o.c. 14.
15 For the quasi-poetic line attributedto Heraclitusat Stob. 1 10.7, which Diels inserted
in Stob. I 10.14 (p. 126.6 ff. W.) at Aet. I 3.1 lb as the parallelto P's prose version of the
same idea, see Diels, DG, ad loc., and M. Marcovich, Eraclito. Frammenti(Firenze
1978) 71. At Vors.22A5, 2nd text, only P's version is printed.But one cannot prove that
Stobaeus took a phrase from the Aetian lemma on Heraclitus and transposed it into
quasi-poetry, though it is clear that he omitted the phrase at 10.14 because he had
alreadyincluded its equivalentin his collection of poetical abstracts.
16 He also interpolates
<'Ezr6oxki'ovq> before 10.1Ia from the margin of his ms. P.,
where it was addedby a learnedhand. In the mss. the lines of Empedocles immediately
follow upon those of Philemon. I do not know what the lost heading looked like.

III

This content downloaded from 134.129.120.3 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:44:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
exegesis'7 which accordingto Kingsley derives from Aetius. It is to be regretted
that Wachsmuthseparatedthe quotation(11 ) from the exegesis ( I b), for there
can be no doubt that they belong togetherand derive from a single source and a
single strandof tradition.In a not unelegantway, this verbose prose exegesis of
the poetic fragment, which moreover also informs us about other aspects of
Empedocles' doctrine, forms a sort of transition to the long series of prose
abstracts- in two lemmataof which quotationsin verse are embedded- which
follow (pt. 2).'"The sequence of quite a large numberof lemmataderivingfrom
Aetius, beginning with Thales and ending with Diodorus, comes first; this
begins at 10.12. From 10.12 to 10.16athese abstractscorrespondwith what is at
P I 3 (875D-78C), though some of P's lemmata are more extensive than the
correspondingitems in S, and S has preservedmore lemmatathan P. We must
take note of the fact that no lemma concerning Empedocles is found in S's
sequence of Aetiana in pt. 2 of this chapter.'9The doxographic sequence is
twice enriched in a not unintelligentway by S with other material.After the
lemma concerning Pythagorashe inserts a passage from the pseudo-Pythago-
rean Theano's On Piety20(I 10.13) dealing with the natureof number.Between
the lemmataconcerningEpicurus'atoms and the view of the Pythagoreanmo-
nads as corporealattributedto Ecphantushe insertsa passage from the Hermet-
ica dealing with the Monad (I 10.15).2
Next, after the lemmata correspondingto P I 3, he adds a passage which
correspondsto P 1 2 (875CD) minus the final sentences, to which a quotation
from Plato, Tim.30a, has been appendedas a substitutionand by way of further
justification (10.16b). The chapter then ends with (3) a substantialfragment
attributableto Arius Didymus22(10.16c).

'7 Conversely, the quotationof 11.VII 99 at 1 10.6 is precededby a brief prose exegesis.

Oddly, Diels put S 1 10.2 (quotationof 11.XIV 246, which is also quotedat P I 3.2 as an
addendumbut there precededby a brief exegesis) in the b-column of Aet. I 3.1 at DG p.
277, though he attributedthe quotation in S to the Homeric allegorists at DG 93; see
furthermy 'Aristotle and others on Thales', Mnemosyne38 (1985) 123 = Studies in the
Historiographyof Greek Philosophy (Assen 1990) (140]. The parallelpassage at Theo-
dor. GAC II 9 has a differentline, viz. II. XIV 201.
1 For S's problematiclemma concerning Xenophanes(with quotationof the line Vors.

21B27), which is not paralleled in P but to some extent in Theodor. GAC IV 5, who
likewise quotes the line, see my 'Aristotleand others ...' 127 = [144] n. 64. It is printed
by Diels in the DG as Aet. I 3.12 but attributedto the Homeric allegoristsat DG 93 and
Vors. 21A36, 2nd text. The other poetic quotationis the Pythagoreanoath at the end of
10.12, paralleledat P I 3.7. Poetic quotationsare occasional ingredientsin P - we have
noticed that of Emp. fr. B6 at I 3.20; cf. I 6.6.7.14, 7.1.2.3.10, 18.2 (Emp. fr. B13,
paralleledat S 1 18.1), 30.1 (Emp. fr. B8, chapterof S lost), 11 19.3, III 5.2, IV 12.5.6,
19.3, V 19.3.
'9 For anotherintentionalomission in a lemma in this chaptersee supra, n. 15.
20 On the apophthegms,letters and tractsattributedto this lady see K. von Fritz, 'Theano
5)', RE Bd. VA (Stuttgart1934) 1379-81.
21 C.H. IV 10, I p. 53.1-12 Nock - Festugiere.
22 Fr. 21 Diels.

112

This content downloaded from 134.129.120.3 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:44:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4. I shall now look a bit more closely at the differences between these passages
in P and S dealing with Empedocles. P begins (1) with a brief summaryof the
doctrineof the four elements and two principles(not a word about the relation
of these elements to the four divinities), (2) quotes fr. B6, and (3) explains the
divine names found in the fragment.The brief summary(1) is lacking in S, who
begins with (2), the fragment;we have seen above that P and S presentdifferent
readings of the second line, P having Zci;g cdOiQ instead of the correct ZEiV;
&eyrlsas in S. We have also noticed that S's explanationof the divine names in
(3) differs from P's in (3), and may now add that his exegesis is the same as
that at [Heracl.]Alleg. ch. 24.7, who moreover at ch. 24.6 briefly mentions the
four elements (a passage which ad sententiamcorrespondsto P's (1) but also
resembles an interpretativeparaphraseof fr. B 6.1) and quotes fr. B6.2-3 (with
the correct reading ZEvsg&Qyi;). Furthermore,S provides a unique justifica-
tion for the interpretationof Aidoneus as air: it is called by this name, he says,
"because it does not possess a light of its own but is illuminatedby the sun and
the moon and the stars". An explanationwhich is clearly etymological, for the
etymology of Aidoneus is "he who is invisible".
But the main difference between P and S lies elsewhere. S has a quite sub-
stantialfourthsection (4), elaboratingon the naturesof the elements and princi-
ples and the cosmic cycle, and adding that Homer already spoke of Love and
Strife in this sense. This entire fourth part, lacking in P but (at least as to its
beginning) correspondingad sententiam with P's (1), is paralleled virtually
word for word in anotherallegorist, viz. at ps.Plut.De Homero 2, chs. 99-100.23
Both S and this other ps.Plutarchargue that Empedocles' doctrine of the two
principles Love and Strife was anticipatedby Homer, and both quote Emp. fr.
B 17. 7-8 and the mini-cento Il. XIV 200-1 + 205 in supportof this view.
As one ponders the major divergences between the lemmata in S and P
dealing with Empedocles,the only conclusion can be that these passages derive
from two quite differenttraditions,and that what is in S thereforecannot derive
from Aetius, as Kingsley claims p245). S. decided not to transcribethe Aetius
lemma concerned with Empedocles among the others at I 10.12 ff. because
earlier in the same chapterhe had already included an excerpt which provided
more information.

5. I add a few comments on Kingsley's furtherclaim that Emp. fr. B6 was

alreadyquoted by Theophrastus,that the interpretationof Hera as earth and of
Aidoneus of air found in S and other authorsbut not in P goes back to Theo-
phrastus,and that P's introductorypassage (1) listing the four elements and two
principles also derives from Theophrastus.24
The hypothesis that P's (1) is Theophrasteanstarts from the parallel at D.L.
VIII 76. Now Diels argued - and whetheror not this argumentholds water is
not the issue here - that a numberof doxographicpassages in Diogenes Laerti-
23 As Diels alreadyobserved, DG 98.
24 Kingsley, O.c. 240, 243, 245.

113

This content downloaded from 134.129.120.3 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:44:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
us, viz. short ones followed by more extensive ones, ultimately derive from
Theophrastus,25 and it would seem that Kingsley accepts this. But Diels expli-
citly states that D.L. VIII 76 should be excluded from these Theophrastiex-
cerpta.26 Nevertheless the parallel at Theophr. Phys. op. fr. 3 Diels, DG pp.
478.1-4 = FHSG fr. 227A.8-12,27is in favour of the hypotheticalderivationof
the listing of the elements and principlesboth in P (1) and D.L. VIII 76 from
Theophrastus.
But does it follow that Theophrastusalreadyquoted the enigmatic Empedo-
cles fragment and provided an allegorical interpretationof the divine names,
stating that Hera is earth and Aidoneus air?28The evidence of Phys. op. fr. 3
fails to prove or even to imply that this could be the case, and a moment's
reflection shows that it is indeed extremely unlikely. Why should Theophrastus
quote a riddle in need of allegoresis ratherthan lines that list the four elements
by their common names, fire, air, water and earth?29As a matterof fact the

25 DG 161-9.
26 DG 167.
27 As Kingsley, O.c. 239, rightly argues. I attributethis fragmentto the Physics, see my
Studies in the Historiography[253-5].
28 I note in passing that Kingsley's claim, o.c. 238 n. 11 that ad0iQ "occurs only once"
in Theophrastus(viz. at Sens. 59) and that "he avoided the terrnwith scrupulousconsis-
tency and, one cannot help concluding, deliberately" is inaccurateand misleading.The
word is also found at Theophr.C.P.I 11.5 = Vors. 31A70, 2nd text, in a critical remark
about ... Empedocles.Arist.An. B 4.415b28-16a2 = Vors.31A70, 3rd text, criticisingthe
same doctrine, uses the word nuQ for the elemental force which drives the shoots
upwards.Consequently,at0?Qa in the Theophrastuspassage reflects Empedocles' own
wording in the latter's otherwise lost account of the genesis and growth of plants and
hence should be addedto the B-fragments.Confirmationis found at the passage in Sens.
referredto above ('A. btatLeEi TOV eQa xai TOV CLt0eQaC), where Theophrastuscites
Anaxagoras'own terminology.As to the adjectiveat0?QLo;at Theophr.Phys. op. fr. 12
Diels (DG pp. 486.12, 490.34-5; FHSG fr. 184.11.182), ap. Philo, Aet. 119 (nQ6;
at0tQLov btVoq)and 147 (0ci4t' ctdOcQLou naV6q), one cannot be sure that it represents
Theophrastus'own wording since there are 21 occurrencesof the word in Philo; what
partsof this long passage as a whole derive from Theophrastusis uncertainanyway. For
the idea of fire (here 3ti:) moving things out of the groundcf. Emp. fr. B62.2.6, about
the first generationof humans;see furthere.g. D. O'Brien, Empedocles' Cosmic Cycle
(Cambridge1969) 191-2.
29 Xenocrates fr. 15 Heinze ap. Stob. Ecl. I 1.29b, pp. 36.15-37.1 W. (Aet. 1 7.30, p.
304.14-9; no parallel in P or Theodoret)is adducedby Kingsley, O.c. 241, as a parallel
and precedent for the interpretationof Aidoneus as air. But this does not prove that
Theophrastusdid so as well. The context in this S passage aboutXenocratesis moreover
quite different.Xenocratesdistinguishesbetween the One = Zeus and Two = the Mother
of the gods (Hera) on the one hand, and something (to be supplementedin the first
lacuna;I suggest <nrVEU ttxaT s;TVaL
g bvvdLELg>, cf. DG p. 306.5-7) in the "material
elements", viz. in the air (to be supplementedin the second lacuna) correspondingto
Hades (if one accepts a minor change in the text, viz. 'A[c]L6TJ<v>),in the wet corre-

114

This content downloaded from 134.129.120.3 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:44:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
sponding latter is what he does. At the end of his brief account of Empedocles
(DG p. 478.11-5= FHSG fr. 227A.20-3) he quotes Emp. fr. B17.17-20. Line 18
of this fragmentspeaks of what Theophrastuscalls "the four" (Toi ToctJaQ-
Ow)30in the following way:

;tJ 6'
X b8(Q XaI ya^ xa IQo;
Xat trkETOV
i4Og.
To be sure, the sequence here is different: fire, water, earth, air, but there are
metricalreasons for the orderadoptedby Empedocles. What is more, one fails
to get the so to speak logical series fire, air, water and earth on either ancient
interpretationof the divine names in Emp. fr. B6. The orderingrepresentedby
the allegoresis of P at (3) is fire, air, earth, water, while thatrepresentedby S is
fire, earth, air, water; I see no possibility of attributingeither of these to
Theophrastus.We should accept the undeniable evidence that Theophrastus
quoted and interpretedEmpedocleanpassages which were sufficiently clear. I
therefore believe that the more recherche fr. B6 which came to replace his
quotation of fr. B17.17-20 was put in by later doxographerswho were not
averse to this kind of exegesis.

Departmentof Philosophy, Universityof Utrecht

sponding to Poseidon, and in the earth correspondingto Demeter on the other. There is
no mention of fire or aether as a fourth materialelement. Because of the different role
attributedto Zeus and of the fact that two other divinities are mentioned here, viz.
Poseidon and Demeter, it is hard to believe that what Xenocrates purportedlysays has
anything to do with the enigmatic Empedocles fragment.The fact that the doxographer
adds that Xenocrates bestowed this doctrine on the Stoics suggests that we are dealing
with an interpretatioStoica of his view.
30 Cf. Arist. Top. A 14.105b16-7, Met. A 3.984a8 'E. & Tl T?TTatEa.

115

This content downloaded from 134.129.120.3 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:44:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions