Hesiod and Empedocles

Hesiod and Empedocles
Author(s): Jackson P. Hershbell

Source: The Classical Journal, Vol. 65, No. 4 (Jan., 1970), pp. 145-161
Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and South
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3295548
Accessed: 11-05-2015 20:06 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of 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.
The Classical Association of the Middle West and South is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Classical Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 157.253.50.51 on Mon, 11 May 2015 20:06:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HESIOD AND EMPEDOCLES

Teacherof most men is Hesiod: they are sure that he knows many
things, who did not recognizeday and night: for they are one.
HUS
HERACLITUS CRITICIZED
Hesiod, socratics such as W. K. C. Guthrie and W.
and almost two centuries later testified

to his influence on subsequent generations.
Whether he was thinking of the common
men rather than of the leading thinkers and
poets of his day is not clear. But in any
case, this quotation, together with the
other references of Heraclitus and Xenophanes to Hesiod, suggests the latter's
continuing importance in the development
of Greek literature and thought.1 As Solmsen and others have observed, Hesiod's
influence is by no means confined to epic,
lyric, and elegiac poets, but extends also to
philosophers such as Parmenides and Empedocles.2 Since they wrote in hexametric
verse, the distinction between poet and
philosopher is, of course, an artificial one.
Both drew from the main poetic tradition of
Homer and Hesiod, though the extent of
their borrowings and the impact of this
tradition on their thought remain to some
degree undetermined. In the case of Empedocles in particular, scholars of the Pre1 In addition to B57 of the fragments of Heraclitus' work, see B40 and B106; for Xenophanes,
B11. All references to the fragments are from H.
Diels and W. Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker,
7th edition, vol. I (Berlin 1954). Hereafter referred to as DK, I. For an interesting discussion
of the influence of Homer and Hesiod on Xenophanes, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, see E. A.
Havelock, "Pre-Literacy and the Pre-Socratics,"
Institute of classical studies, Univ. of London,
Bulletin No. 13 (1966) 44-67.
2 See F. Solmsen, Hesiod and Aeschylus (Ithaca
1949) p. 103 f., especially 104, n. 6. See also E. F.
Dolin, Jr., "Parmenides and Hesiod," Harvard
studies in classical philology 66 (1962) 93-98.
Jaeger, have discussed points of comparison

between his poems and those of Hesiod,
mainly in connection with the doctrine of
Love and Strife and the teachings of his
religious work the Purifications (KatharOther scholars such as W. Kranz
moi).3
and A. Traglia have noted formal and stylistic similarities between the compositions
of the two poetic thinkers.4 A survey of the
work of these scholars suggests that the
influence of Hesiod on Empedocles is far
more extensive than their individual studies
and observations indicate. Hence, the aim
of the present study is to draw together and
supplement previous scholarly research in
order to determine, if possible, the full
extent of the relationship between Hesiod
and Empedocles. An obvious danger of
such a study is that it can become a mere
3 W. K. C. Guthrie, A history of Greek philosophy, vol. II (Cambridge, England 1965), especially
p. 251-253, 255, and 264. Also W. Jaeger, The
theology of the early Greek philosophers (Oxford,
reprint 1960), p. 14-15 and 137 f. I am especially
indebted to Jaeger for the discussion of Hesiod's
and Empedocles' concepts of divinity.
4 See W. Kranz, "Das Verhdltnis des Sch6pfers
zu seinem Werk in des althellenischen Literatur,"
Neue Jahrbiicher fiir das klassische Altertum 27
(1924) 67-86, especially 66, 73, and 78-79. Also
his Empedokles, Antike Gestalt und romantische
Neusch6ipfung (Zurich 1949). A. Traglia, Studi
sulla lingua di Empedocle (Bari 1952). Traglia's
interesting and valuable study has not received as
much attention as it deserves. Many of my conclusions concerning the influence of Hesiod on
Empedocles' style were reached before reading
Traglia's study, and it was gratifying to find
agreement.
146
JACKSON P. HERSHBELL
Flickwerk with little or no originality. In

order to avoid this, the following schema
will be observed: (a) considerationof stylistic and verbal similarities; (b) comparison of major themes or pivotal concepts,
e.g., in the case of Empedocleshis doctrines
of Love and Strife and the "roots of all
things"; and (c) subsidiary themes, e.g.,
the degeneration of mankind and natural
law, apparently common to both. To some
extent these categories overlap, and verbal
and stylistic considerations cannot always
be divorced from those more obviously
philosophical.
The overall purpose of this study, apart
from showing the extent of Hesiodic influence, is to offset those interpretations of
Empedocles which begin with later thinkers, notably Aristotle, and work backwards.
Of course, were it not for Aristotle's preservation of some ipsissima verba of Empedocles, our knowledge of his work would be
much less. It must constantly be kept in
mind, however, that Aristotle brought to his
interpretationof Empedocles a terminology
and concepts in some cases quite alien to
the poet of Akragas. For example, although
Empedocles'doctrine of the four "roots"of
things no doubt anticipates Aristotle's theory of the four elements (stoicheia), it is
anachronisticand misleadingto identify the
two; for Aristotle the real elements of the
physical world are not earth, air, fire and
water, as they were for Empedocles,but the
primary opposites: hot, cold, wet, and dry.
A consideration of Hesiodic influence is,
of course, in no way designed to minimize
the originality of Empedocles' thought or
his own impact on following generations.
H. Diels, who regardedEmpedocles'system
as "ein interessanter Ekleticismus," found
in it "wenigoriginellenGehalte."" But such
a judgment seems harsh, especially when it
is rememberedthat Parmenides' poem, despite the apparent novelty of his thesis,
also contains reminiscencesof the work of
, H.
Diels, "Gorgias und Empedokles," Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie 19 (1884) 343.
his predecessors,including the poetic tradition of Homer and Hesiod.6 No doubt this
tradition was in the cultural atmosphereof
ancient Greece, and Wilamowitz's incidental remark that Empedocles knew nothing
of eastern Greek poetry except Homer and
Hesiod, may well be correct.7 Given the
assumption, however, that the epic tradition had a pervasive and deep-rootedinfluence on the culture of Empedocles' time,
and that he drew from it in developing his
own poetical thought, it does not follow
that he was merely an imitator or thinker
with little or no originality. What must be
kept in mind is the extent and manner in
which he reshapedor further developed the
tradition, and even reacted against it. In
view of Xenophanes' and Heraclitus' explicit criticisms of Homer and Hesiod and
the implicit attack of Parmenides on the
thought processes representedby the latter,
it would be surprising if Empedocles' endeavors were wholly without critical or
polemicalintent.8 It is by no means uncommon for a thinker to be both indebted to
and critical of his predecessors.
The problem of determining the influence of Hesiod on Empedocles is, of course,
somewhat complicated in two respects.
First, it is not always certain which lines or
part lines in the two undoubtedly genuine
poems of Hesiod, the Theogony and Works
and days, are original and not composed or
inserted by later rhapsodes. Similarly, not
all the fragments of Empedocles' poems
have been considered genuine or are free of
textual problems. Second, given the simi6
The concept of Eros in B13 of Parmenides'
poem is no doubt borrowed from Hesiod. For
Homeric influence, see E. A. Havelock, "Parmenides and Odysseus," Harvard studies in classical
philology 63 (1958) 133-143.
7 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, "Die KaOapp~oldes Empedokles," Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie 27 (1929) 654. Wilamowitz
writes: "Von den ionischen Philosophen hat er
kaum Kenntnis gehabt; ausser Homer und Hesiod
hat er nichts von Poesie aus dem Osten gekannt."
8 For Parmenides' attack on
Hesiod, see Dolin,
HSCP 66, 93-98.
larity between some of the ideas and even

language of both thinkers, can one be
certain that Empedocles was directly acquainted with Hesiod's poems? He could
have derived his knowledge of Hesiod from
another source, e.g., an itinerant rhapsode.
Another possibility is that Hesiod and later,
Empedocles, were dependent on another
source from which they drew some of their
material, e.g., Orphism.9
Though doubts such as the latter cannot
perhaps be dispelled entirely, a consideration of verbal and stylistic similarities will
make it at least probable that Empedocles
had direct acquaintance with Hesiod's
works, and that the echoes of these in the
fragments of his own poems are not wholly
accidental. As for the matter of authenticity, there is no unanimity among scholars
of Hesiod as to which lines or passages were
original to his poems. According to Jacoby,
more than half of the Theogony is spurious,
and Wilamowitz refused to print the last
sixty-four lines of the Works and days
(they constitute that part usually known as
the Days).1? In the case of Empedocles, it
9 In his commentary on Hesiod's Theogony, M.
L. West claims that it is unlikely that Orphism yet
existed at the time of Hesiod. See Hesiod Theogony, ed. M. L. West (Oxford 1966), p. 282.
Orphic influence has often been seen on Empedocles, but this has been questioned by Millerd. C. E.
Millerd, On the interpretation of Empedocles
(Chicago 1908), p. 10-11. The whole problem of
Orphism in antiquity is quite complicated and
speculative. In general, the negative conclusions of
I. M. Linforth in his The arts of Orpheus (Berkeley 1941) are persuasive. There is also no overwhelming evidence of Pythagorean influence.
B129 has often been taken as a reference to
Pythagoras himself, but Jaeger points out that
"we can hardly consider the reference to Pythagoras well established." Jaeger, Theology, p. 151.
1o West refers to F. Jacoby's Hesiodi Theogonia
(Berlin 1930) as a "cross between Aristarchus and
a railway timetable"; West, Theogony, p. 102.
Concerning possible interpolations in the Theogony West writes: "The clearest signs of remaniement are, in my opinion, in the description of the
underworld, 720-819. ... But in general, unsubstantiated suspicion is all that one has to go on."
West, Theogony, p. 50. Solmsen is inclined to
147
has recently been argued that B111 (a

fragment of nine lines) is spurious.11 In
general, however, extreme sceptical positions such as these have not been favorably
received by other scholars, and for the purposes of this study it will be assumed,unless
there is good evidence to the contrary, that
the passages of Hesiod and Empedocles
under considerationare genuine. As a rule,
textual problems, unless significant to the
argument, will be confined to footnotes.
I. Stylistic and Verbal Similarities
Since Sturz's collection and study of the
fragments of Empedocles, Empedocles Agrigentinus (1805), all editors have considered the dedicatory verse to Pausanias:
IIavavt`L, 8, KXVOtL,
ViE
TV
&a'itpovos"'AYXrTEo
("But do you listen, O son of skilled Anchises") as the first fragment of Empedocles' poem On nature. This is not to say
that it was, in fact, the very beginning of
the poem, since the particle 8Esuggests that
one or more lines preceded it. But the formula o-u
V'
8v (see also a; 8,'o0vof B2.8,
or
of B110.6 and acr y' of B3.6) although
found in Homer, occurs with frequency in
Hesiod's Works and days (v. 27, 213, 248,
274, etc.) where together with the similar
formulae o- 8E,
8,
AXXaoS, it is usu-
,'lEs
ally used to introduce a new set of ideas or
moral teachings. Moreover,it has the function of holding together the often disconnected parts of the poem and, especially
after long digressions, of uniting them to
the main thread of the discourse. Because
accept the genuineness of the underworld passage.

See Solmsen, Hesiod, p. 60 f. No argument in
this paper depends on whether the Days is genuine.
11See B. A. Van Groningen, "Le fragment 111
d'Empedocle," Classica et mediaevalia 17 (1956)
47-61. According to him the fragment is not
genuine but "l'exageration de ce qu'on savait
d'Empedocle dans les milieux plus ou moins cultives, la cristallisation de ce que racontait le grand
public, mal informe et avide de merveilleux . ."
(p. 68). His arguments have a degree of persuasiveness, but no part of this study depends on the
genuineness of B111.
148
of its occurrencein the first fragmentof On

nature, some scholars have suggested that a
proem or introduction similar to that of
Works and days also appeared in Empedocles' poem.12 In any case, the remains of
the latter begin with an expression characteristic of Hesiod.
The similarity between Hesiod's poems
and those of Empedocles does not end,
however,with the use of a commonformula.
Like Hesiod, Empedoclescalls on the Muses
(B3 and B131), but in neither case are
their compositions exclusively the revelations of higher powers who possess and
dominate the emotions and thoughts of the
poets. On the contrary, their personalities
are expressed,and even some autobiographical material is contained in the verses of
their poems. In the Theogony Hesiod mentions himself by name (v. 22) and describes
the appearance of the Muses to him while
he was tending sheep under Mount Helicon;
in the Works and days he frequently refers
to the facts of his life, including how he
visited Chalcis in Euboea and won a prize
at the funeral games there (651-662). So
in the first fragment of the Purifications
(B 112), Empedocles describes his itinerant
life, and the honor he received from crowds
desiring to hear his oracles and words of
healing. Both poets direct their teaching to
a specific individual: in the Works and
days Hesiod advises his brother,Perses, and
in On nature Empedocles instructs his
friend, Pausanias. In fact, both poets use
the same term at the beginning of their
address: KUXIJO("listen" or "pay heed," W.
d. 9 and B 1). For Hesiod the verb does not
necessarily mean "hear" or "listen" but
"pay heed" whether with eye or ear. In a
similar fashion, Empedocles does not put a
premium on any one of the senses, but
seems to consider them all as being "paths
to knowledge" (B3, 12).
In general, as Kranz and Guthrie have
observed, Empedocles' address to a single
person in On nature puts it in the category
12
Kranz, Neue Jahrbiicher 27, 78.
of admonitorypoetry (it is a Mahngedicht,

according to Kranz) of which the Works
and days is the most famous example.13
But in this work Hesiod's rede is not always
confined to Perses; on occasion he addresses
the judges or rulers of the land (e.g., 202 f.
and 248 f.), and in the Theogony an unspecified general audience. So in the fragments assigned to the Purifications, Empedocles addresses his fellow citizens in
Akragas, and perhaps in both poems he has
mankind as a whole in mind. Moreover,
both poets working under some kind of
divine inspiration seem to have occasional
contempt for their fellow men. In the
Theogony Hesiod's Muses abuse him and
his fellow shepherds as being "rustic or
boorish .
. wretched things of shame"
(v. 26), and in the Works and days, this

present race of men is of iron, and, in part,
violent and evil, subject to death (175 f.).
The judges of the land are "bribe-devouring" (v. 39) and Hesiod holds them in
contempt for not knowing proverbs such as
"the half is greater than the whole" (v. 40).
They are, in fact, "fools" (v?7rtLOL).So are
those men, according to Empedocles, whose

"thoughts are not far-reaching" (B 11)
and assume the existence of what is not;
men are doomed to swift destruction,
boastful of having found the Whole (B2);
indeed, they suffer from madness (pjavia,
B3.1); do not speak rightly (B9); and are
murdering and feasting on one another
(B136). On the whole, neither poet seems
to have a very flattering view of the human
race.
Yet another similarity is found in the
claim that Hesiod and Empedocles make to
the effect that their words are true and
without deception. In the Theogony, immediately after castigating Hesiod's fellow
men, the Muses declare: "We know how to
speak many false things as though they
were true: but we know when we wish to
utter true things" (27-28). Their speech
13
Guthrie, History, II, p. 137 and Kranz, Neue
Jahrbiicher, 78.
149
and the sea
suggests that Hesiod has previously been

occupied with false matters, or even that
the tales of other rhapsodes were not true.
Again in the Works and days, Hesiod de-
roots of the earth (yq9s k1aL)
words often taken as a deliberate

a7Tra?TqdXOv)
In B82.2 the expression ir uTIaLapo^UL

is found in Theog. 152 and W. d.
tLEXEcuLv
the deceptive order of my words" (.
149.16 Again when Empedocles describes

the cosmic sphere during the reign of Love
(B29) or his divinity of holy, ineffable will
(B134) opposing the usual ancient Greek
anthropomorphicconception of the gods, he
yielding no harvest" grew above Tartarus.15

Since a context is lacking for the verse of
Empedocles, it is impossible to understand
clares flatly to his brother: ErT)Irvula
/vOqrlcal- the expression fully, but that it is not an
So in Empedocles the claim of allusion to Xenophanes' doctrine is demon(v.
10).
/v
truth is made in B114: "I know that truth strated by B39 where the latter's view that
is present in the words which I shall speak" the roots of the earth extend indefinitely
.
(see Xenophanes' B28) seems to be com(... . o01a fv oivcK X~O'q apa pvOots . .).
Also in B17.26 Empedocles declares, "but batted. Further discussion of "roots" in
do you listen to the unerring course of my Hesiod and Empedocles will be taken up in
argument" (oU'8'Kovc EXdyov OdoXOV OVK a consideration of their main concepts.
imitation of Parmenides' ". . . listening to
i)wV
77raTqXoV
aKOVWV
B8.51).
Empedocles c7r.WV
says he will teach the truth,
whereas Parmenides avowedly puts forth
false teaching. But there seems to be little
doubt that the prototype for both of these
passages is the address of the Muses to
Hesiod in verses 27-28 of the Theogony.14
Like Hesiod, and against Parmenides, Empedocles is anxious, though his reasons are
not wholly clear, to claim truth for his
poems.
The foregoing similarities of thought and
vocabularymight, of course, be wholly accidental were it not for other verbal echoes of
Hesiod's poetry in the fragmentsof Empedocles' works, which will now be examined.
In many instances the phrases used by Empedocles are given new meaning or otherwise reworked, but the borrowing seems
clearly present.
In B54, for example, Empedocles declares that air "sank down into the earth
KdOU"IOV
says o . ..
Ar
.
v'.roLO . . c.adcYovrat,
using,
in part, Hesiod's descriptionof the giants in

the Theogony from whose shoulders spring
an hundred arms (d&r'~wv dlraovro, 150)
and whose fifty heads are set on strong

shoulders
(irt' UTrflapotLtLuahfcLv,152).
It
is, moreover,tempting to conclude that Empedocles' description of monstrous figures,

(e.g., foreheads without necks, or creatures
with innumerable hands, B57-B61), although the result of his own imaginative
powers and representing stages of organic
development in his cosmic cycle, was inspired by Hesiod's description of the Cyclops, Titans, and Giants in the Theogony.
In B96.1 another apparent reminiscence
of Hesiod's Theogony is found. The earth
is ... iv EVTErpVOLt
xodvotat, the phrase being
with long roots"
of
KTa~X Va TO70 partly an echo of the yala EVpv
rVpvos3
(ptaKpiLrL
putats). So in Works and days (v. 19)
Theog. 117. Also the term x'avos, borrowed
Hesiod had described how Cronos who

dwells in the aether, set Eris in the roots of
the earth (yarlP iv Aiga~).
Again in Theog.
728, as Traglia following Diels noted, "the
14 The
similarity of the Muses' message to
Hesiod and the goddess' message to Parmenides
has been noted by Jaeger, Theology, p. 94; Dolin,
HSCP 66, 94. That B17, 26 of Empedocles' poem
is an obvious echo of Parmenides' B8, 52 has been
noted by Guthrie, History, II, 138.
15
Traglia, Studi, p. 31. Many of the following
examples used in this part of the paper can also be
found in Traglia.
16 G. S. Kirk claimsthat o'r
q
I
a~tXEo-oV
oapoito
in Theog. 152 is "an inappropriate
elaboration
pointlessly based on the Homeric phrase 'vt
-yvaArrroZL AeeoXveL." Kirk, "The structure and
aim of the Theogony," (Entretiens sur l'antiquite'
classique, vol. 7, Geneva 1962), p. 78. But von
Fritz rightly finds ". . . der Ausdruck . . . an
dieser Stelle nicht unpassend" (ibid., p. 107).
150
JACKSON
from metal working and found in Homer,17

is used by Hesiod in a comparisonin which
the scorching of the earth by vapor and its
melting by the heat of Zeus' thunderbolts
during the Titanomachia is likened to the
melting of tin in crucibles or to iron which
is melted in the earth by fires in mountain
dens. One cannot exclude the possibility
that Empedocles' notion of fires burning
beneath the surface of the earth (B52) was
influenced by this passage in Hesiod.
But perhaps the two most notable examples of Hesiodic influence on Empedocles'
language are found in two fragments of the
Purifications: the description of the oracle
of Necessity in B 115 and the catalogues of
divinities in B122-123.
In B115 Empedocles announces in a
P. HERSHBELL
793-806, the notion of exile from the company of the gods occurs in connection with
Hesiod's account of the river Styx, by whose
frigid water the oaths of the gods are sworn.
And in both cases there is banishment for
oath-breaking (though in Empedocles' account the primal sin seems to be shedding
of blood; for Hesiod it is oath-breaking
alone). Moreover, the attack on oathbreaking is stylistically similar: 03 KEV7V
y (Theog. 793);
iErlopKOV
,
OTiE~oAd
oo'aood
and in Empedocles
(B115.4):
. .
'3 K(E)
iErKopKOV
4aprVjTas TroodTcrcr.The latter line
an ancient decree of the gods, sealed with
is considered by Knatz and later Wilamowitz to be an addition from the Theogony,

and not original to B 115 of Empedocles'
poem.19 But their arguments are not decisive, and that Empedocles probably had
the passage from Hesiod in mind is shown
by comparisonof v. 800 of the Theogony:
firm-based oaths. . . ." What follows sug-
aXhos y'E
gests not only a strong Hesiodic influence

on the general thought of the fragment,but
also its language and style. According to
the ancient decree of the gods "when a
being through sinfulness defiles his own
limbs with blood (murder) or following
strife has sworn a false oath, even one of
with v. 12 of B115:
solemn manner an ". . . oracle of Necessity,
the spirits (8altovjs)
who have been al-
lotted great length of life, they should wander thrice 10,000 seasons away from the
blessed...
." First, these verses remind one
X Taov E
XeTa
XaE
ArdrEpos aEOXos
ahXog 8' i~ ahhov
s 7rarCTES,
and by the use
vovylov,
ofxxera,
("primeval")
~'yv'yos
in Theog. 806,
which is found in another fragment of Empedocles (B84.7). In Hesiod it describes

the water of Styx; in Empedocles the elemental fire within the human eye, which
incidentally also contains water. Since the
epithet is rare and not found in the Homeric
poems, there is likelihood that it is taken
from Hesiod's Theogony.
But there is a differencebetween the conceptions of Hesiod and Empedoclesin these
passages, and that is, for Hesiod the exiled
god remains a god; he is set apart from the
human race, and the gap separating him
from mortals remains the same in exile.
For Empedocles the exiled daimon falls
from his noble estate, and goes from one
of Hesiod's Works and days, where there is

a description of a golden race of men who
after their death become "guiltlessdaimones
. guardians of mortal men who watch
over righteous decrees and savage deeds,
wandering everywhere over the earth,
clothed in mist" (W. d. 121-125).18 Second, if the verses of B 115 are compared
with 793-806 of the Theogony, it becomes mortal form to another (". . .
becoming in
apparent how similar the thought of Em- time all sorts of perishable things, taking in
pedocles is to that of Hesiod. In Theog. exchange difficult paths of life in succession," B115.7-8), though it is not wholly
17 On
Empedocles' use of terms borrowed from
clear whether the identity of the daimon is
various crafts, see F. Solmsen's interesting article,
"Nature as craftsman in Greek thought," Journal
of the history of ideas, 24 (1963) 476 f.
18For further discussion, see Guthrie, History,
II, p. 264.
19See Wilamowitz, Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie 27, 634. See Traglia's criticism
of their view, Studi, p. 173, n. 35.
151
somehow preserved or destroyed in the

MEvr6O4,etc. (Theog. 349-361) and
Zcvd,,
process.
Kahhkatr4, PVaCI,Ktv4, MEya/rrC (B 122Yet another fragment of Empedocles 123). Moreover, some of the names of
showing the influence of Hesiod is B122- Empedocles' divinities are those of Hesiod:
123:
thus the goddesses NqpEprmT4
and ?o4owa of
can
the Nereid
be
with
B122
compared
Therewere the Earth
and
goddess(Chthonie)
the keen-sightedSun goddess (Heliope), and
bloody Strife and Harmony sedate of look,
Beauty and Ugliness, Speed and Loitering,
charmingTruth, and dark-hairedObscurity.
Growth and Decay, Sleeping and Waking,
Movement and Rest, many-crowned Pomp
and Defilement, Silence and Speech.
Though there is only one name the same,

i.e., N-qAEp-rq,Truth or Infallibility,
the
primary model for these fragments of Empedocles' poem is probably the Catalogue of
Nymphs found in II. 18.39 f.20 It is not
an unimaginative imitation of Homer, but
shows originality and skill in invention. The
fragments, however, are not without distinct echoes of Hesiod's Theogony. In fact,
the Stoic philosopher Cornutus (1st cent.
A.D.), who saw in these fragments Empedocles' recognitionof the differences or antinomies of nature (Staoopa' r6rv 'vrwv, com-
pared the variety of these names with those

of the Titans in Hesiod's Theogony.21 Thus
in both poets he saw the symbolic expression of the contrariety and diversity of the
forces which govern this world. But as
Traglia pointed out, the analogy between
the divinities of Empedocles and the Titans
of Hesiod is vague and reflects, in general,
the Stoic training of Cornutus.22 A more
accurate comparison between these fragments of Empedocles and Hesiod's Theogony is found in the Catalogue of the
Nereids (240-264) and of the Oceanids
(337-370), especially in the use of proper
names with endings in
-4: lHlEhO,IlpvUv41,
20
J. Burnet, Early Greek philosophy (New
York, reprint 1957), p. 223, n. 2. See also Solmsen,
Hesiod, p. 46. There is little doubt that the catalogue is pre-Hesiodic; Hesiod perhaps modelled
his catalogue on it, and Empedocles modelled his,
in turn, on Hesiod.
21
DK, I, p. 361.
22 Traglia, Studi, p. 38.
NrltEtpr4' of
Theog.
262 and with
the
Oceanid ?od of Theog. 354. Both poets
also use the adjective pdrraaa, Hesiod applying it to HIErpa0l(v. 357) and Empedo-
cles to
(B 122.4). Lastly, Emped-
Nq7tkEprmq. ..
ocles' HoXvoTEr4avo
(B123.2)
Mey/IrTOof
echoes E1-YTEavov
o
Theog.
...'AAXtyv8
255.
Other similarities of style and language
can be cited. For example, Bignone observed
that the formula with which Hesiod distinguished the different ages of men, acrhp
(W. d. 156; cf. v. 140 and
'?rdroAro
Ka
to the formulawith which
120) corresponds
Empedocles distinguished the different moments of the cosmic cycle: B30.1; B59.1.23
In the Diels-Kranz commentary the phrase
in B29.3 used of the cosmic
taro EavTrmO
sphere is comparedwith Theog. 126, where
starry Heaven is considered equal to the
Earth.24 In the Works and days (v. 277)
occurs a formula: xOv p 1vKc Oipcl KaL
olovoZi werlEvot3, which may be echoed in
fragments assigned to Empedocles' poem

On nature: B20.6-7, B21.11, and B23.7.
Traglia saw the model of B132.1: &ApXl
;03
Odtv rrparrt8wviKTaaTro
)Taoorov
(from which
is perhaps derived Vergil's "felix qui potuit

rerum cognoscere causas") in Theog. 954:
OX0Los,
iya
cpyov
iV aOavaTroLv
avvooaaa
val~a awr-avro.255 A similar sentiment is also
found at the end of the Works and days

(826-827):
...
Trd.vEv8al~jLv TE Ka ApoXLo0,
g,
AVa
oC
aO,0,aTOLO'V.
Inipyay
view of the preceding
linguistic and
there
is
a high degree
stylistic similarities,
of probability that Empedocles knew the
works of Hesiod and borrowed from them.
2 E. Bignone, Empedocle (Turin 1916), p. 218,

n. 3.
24DK, I, p. 325, the note on v. 5.
25 Traglia, Studi, p. 40.
152
P. HERSHBELL
JACKSON
There is, of course, a tendency, no doubt

partly arising from metrical requirements,
for Empedocles to alter or reshape Hesiodic
formulae. But Empedocles'borrowingfrom
Hesiod is not confined to language and
style; it extends also to his conceptual
scheme, and similarities between some of
the pivotal concepts of Hesiod and Empedocles will now be considered.
II. The Cosmologiesof Hesiod and
Empedocles
Especially in the description of the

underworld following the Titanomachia
(Theog. 720-819), there is emphasis on a
cosmological description of the world. For
example, the water of Styx, who was known
earlier as the daughter of Ocean (v. 361
and 776), is now describedas being a tenth
part of the ocean (v. 789). Tartarus itself
is a great gap which contains the "roots of
earth and sea" (v. 728); later in v. 738 and
809 are mentioned the "springs and borders" (wr~ya- Ka' wrlpara) of earth, sea,
heaven, and even Tartarus.

Owing to its possible influence on EmAlthough Hesiod in his Theogony musters an enormouscatalogue of divine powers pedocles' thought, Hesiod's description of
or gods in the orderof their generationwith the underworld bears closer examination.
the unmistakablepurposeof identifying the After the poet concludes with the banishbirth and subsequent reign of Zeus as the ment of the Titans to Tartarus, in 720-819
climax of cosmic history, the poem is not he envisions a three-storey universe which
without cosmologicalintent. In v. 108-111, seems to be symmetrical. Heaven is at the
for example, the Muses are invoked to tell "top," and, according to Hesiod, it would
"how at first gods and earth came to be and take a falling anvil nine nights and days to
rivers and the boundless sea . . . and the reach the earth on the tenth; from earth to
shining stars and the wide heaven above, Tartarus which lies on the "bottom," it
would take another nine days and nights.
and the gods who were born from them...."
In subsequent sections of the poem cosmo- Earth would then lie in the center of the
logical emphases are present. For example, cosmos, and on either side there would be
as Solmsen has observed, when Hesiod two equal distances (compare this with
speaks of Gaea's giving birth to Uranos, he the doxographical reports of Empedocles'
is actually thinking of heaven and earth, sperical cosmos with its halves being hemiGaea herself being both the earth and the spheres, earth lying in the center).28 Targoddess representing the earth.26 More- tarus itself is enclosed by a high fence of
over, although she is a goddess and mother, bronze, and some way above this are the
she is also a cosmic principle. From her are "roots of the earth self-grown (/reov'aa),
born heaven and the mountainsand the sea, and of the unharvestedsea" (v. 728). Perwithout a male consort, and she remains haps, as M. L. West points out, Hesiod
active in the backgroundduring the events envisioned the division between earth and
leading to Zeus' final victory. In the The- sea as gradually disappearingin the underogony no origin is given for the human race, world, the two branching out into roots
but in the Works and days (v. 108) Earth intertwined with one another.29 Perhaps
is said to be the commonsource of men and below this the distinction between earth
and water disappears; or workingin reverse
compare with the
gods (%Odev yEydacmLL;
from a basic indeterminate something, a
of B23.9-10).27
Ov-qrw^v
aXXoOhv
tangle of determinate entities emerges
26Solmsen, Hesiod, p. 58. Solmsen's discussion
of Hesiod's cosmology is especially valuable. Ibid.,
58 f.
27 On this verse in the Works and days, see
U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Hesiodos erga
(Berlin, reprint 1962), p. 54 f.
28
Guthrie, History, II, p. 190 f. has an interesting discussion of the shape of the cosmos, though
he does not show the caution of Millerd; he sees
Orphic influence. Millerd, On interpretation, p. 10.
29 West, Theogony, p. 361.
HESIODANDEMPEDOCLES
153
account of the world's origin in the Theogony, the poet introduces Eros (Love) as
one of the oldest and fairest of the gods,
coeval with Earth and Heaven (v. 120).
And although Hesiod does not assign a specific role to Eros in the processes of cosmic
and divine generation, there is little doubt
that the early appearanceof the god in the
poem (who is never mentioned again except in connection with Aphrodite'sbirth in
v. 201) reflects Hesiod's recognition of the
important function of sexual union in the
origin of the cosmos and of the divine famThere are the gleaminggates and the brazen
ilies within it. In the remainder of the
threshold set immovable, compacted with
roots that are continuous,self-grown.... Out
Theogony, the formulae describing sexual
at the end, away from all the gods, the Titans
union are referred to Philotes and Aphrodwell across the misty gap. But the glorious
dite, and it can be assumed that they take
allies of loud-crashingZeus have their dwellover the function of Eros. In 205-206,
ing on Ocean'sfoundations.... (810-815)
Aphrodite's activity in human life is deOnce more the term "roots" appears, prob- scribedwhere she is present in the "whisperably overlapping with the word "founda- ings of maidens and smiles and deceits... ."
tions" (0qdCO0oLt)applied to Ocean. Up to In other words, Eros is not only in the
this point Hesiod has spoken of roots or background of divine matings; she is also
sources of earth, sea, sky or heaven, and present in human activities.
Tartarus; now to these is added the foundaIn addition to Eros or Love, Eris or
tions of Ocean.
Strife also appears in the Theogony (v.
Again in the Works and days the idea of 225), later to have a major function in the
"roots" appears (v. 18-19). Here the con-. Works and days. Although she is listed
trast is between Cronos "dwelling in the among the children of Night, Eris has, in
air" and the "roots of the earth." In the turn, numerous
offspring:
heaven or sky Eris ("Strife") has no funcand Forgetfulnessand HunWork
... painful
tion; it busies itself only among men, and
ger and tearful Sorrows,and Fightings, Battherefore has its dwelling in the depths of
tles, Murders,Manslaughters,Quarrels,Lying
Words, Disputes, Lawlessnessand Bewilderthe earth. But that the term "roots"has no
ment, all dwellingtogetherwith one another,
greater meaning than the depths of the
and Oath who most troubles men on earth
when anyone voluntarilyswears a false oath.
earth, especially in view of its use in the
(226 f.)
Theogony, seems doubtful.31 In Hesiod's
the
term
is
on
the
to
In
Works and days, Hesiod opens his adpoems
way
having
some kind of cosmological significance.
dress to Perses with the doctrine of Strife or
Almost at the very beginning of Hesiod's Eris, only now he gives the malicious goddess of the Theogony a sister goddess who
30Ibid., p. 364.
presides over the wholesome rivalry and
31Wilamowitz saw no greater meaning in the
competition of this world:
verse: Erga, p. 43. But if one accepts the priority
which, in turn, become more and more separate, developing into the discrete masses
of the world. In 738 or, if this line be
rejected, in 809 the "root" metaphor gives
way to that of springs and sources (iriyal),
the former metaphor perhaps being appropriate only to the solid earth, whereas the
notion of "sources" or "springs" is appropriate to that of the ocean.30 Finally in
810-813, the poet tries to fuse the image of
roots in space with the image of a palace
hall and its threshold:
of the Theogony, the "roots of earth" in the

Works and days probably has some reference to
the cosmological passages of Hesiod's previous
poem. It is, of course, true that in the absence of
further discussion in Works and days, speculation
about the term is pointless.
So then, there was not one kind of Strife, but

on the earth there are two. The one a man
would praisewhen he recognizedher; but the
other is blameworthy.... For one fostersevil
war and fighting, being cruel. .. . But the
other is much better for men; she rouseseven
154
the shiftless to work; for a man grows eager

to work when he considershis neighbor...
(11 f.)
In other words, Strife has not only a

destructive but also a constructive function
within the cosmos.
Having made the foregoing observations
concerningHesiod's thought, a closer examination of the relationshipbetween him and
Empedocles is possible. There is little
doubt, of course, that the primary ingredients of the cosmos, according to Empedocles, are Love and Strife and the "four roots
of all things." Given these six major factors, together with his acceptance of the
Parmenidean axiom that what is not is
unintelligible, Empedocles is able to offer a
description of the cosmos. Ontology culminates in cosmology, and in a passage reminiscent of Hesiod's Theog. 108-111,32 Empedocles addresses his friend Pausanias:
"Come, I will tell you first
. . .
from which
all things which we now see came forth:

earth and the many-waved sea and the
moist air and the Titan aether binding tight
around the whole circle." (B38) To be
sure, the exact nature or composition of
Empedocles' roots and the specific roles of
Love and Strife in relation to the roots and
in relation to one another remain, to some
degree, unclear. For example, are the roots
the minimal portions of reality or are they,
in turn, constructed out of even smaller
particles; in other words, are there "elements of elements"? In addition to Love
and Strife are there other powers, e.g.,
Chance or Necessity, which govern the
world? Despite these and other problems
which have been raised concerning the details of Empedocles' thought, the general
outlines seem clear.33 In essence, it will
be argued, the impetus for Empedocles'
thought is found in Hesiod, and the termi32 This part of the Theogony may also be compared with Parmenides B11. West, Theogony, p.
190.
33 For further discussion of these problems, the
reader is referred to Millerd, On interpretation,
and Guthrie, History, II.
nology and thought of the latter are taken

over, reworkedand expanded to the extent
that, using the notion of "roots" and Love
and Strife, Empedocles is able to produce
a reasonably complete picture of the cosmos, a picture that is at once mythical or
supernaturaland quasi-scientificor natural.
The "roots" are first mentioned in the
present order of Empedocles' fragments in
Diels-Kranz in B6: "Hear first the four
roots of all things: bright Zeus and lifebringing Hera and Aidoneus and Nestis
who moistens a mortal spring with her
tears." Though the language of B6 is quite
different, this fragment is compared in the
Diels-Kranz commentary with Theog. 736
f. where the four roots, i.e., those of earth,
Tartarus, sea, and heaven, are also mentioned in two verses.34 In another fragment, B23.9-10, Empedocles uses, like
Hesiod, the word "spring" (r~y~y)almost as
a synonym for "root": "Thus let not deception overcome your mind that the spring
of perishable creatures is from any other
source" (presumably the roots)."3 Earth,
Tartarus, sea, and heaven were, of course,
divine for Hesiod, and so it is not surprising
that Empedocles gives divine names to his
roots. But the divine names given in B6
are later replacedby a vocabularyno longer
theological but cosmological. In B 17.18 the
roots are "fire and water and earth and the
immense height of air." Again in B22.2 a
similar phrasing appears. Fire specifically
appears as flame (B85) and sun or Helios
(B21.3). In other words, the tendency
already in Hesiod's Theogony to see, for
example, Gaea not only as goddess of the
earth, but as earth itself, a cosmic principle,
is developed by Empedocles to the point
where the theological becomes subordinate
to, and almost vanishes from the cosmological. Yet despite Empedocles' apparent
preference for the plain language of quasiscientific description, there is little doubt
34 DK, I, p. 312.
' That the
fragment refers to the roots is

argued by Guthrie, History, II, p. 148.
155
that his roots are sentient (see B 103), and

at times they seem to have an activity of
indestructible: they are also unbegotten

(B7). For Hesiod the gods, although im-
their own. Fire "hides itself" (,oxa-tEro) in
mortal, i.e., not subject to death (JOilvaro-),
the round pupils of the eye (B84.8). Fire

sends up shapes desiring to reach its like
(B62); and in a passage highly reminiscent
both in thought and language of Works and
days (60 f.) where Zeus bids Hephaestus
to "mix earth with water and to put in it
the voice and strength of human kind,
and fashion a charming lovely shape of
a maiden," Empedocles describes Cypris
(Love) who "after she had moistened the
earth with water, as she fashioned the forms
of living things gave them to swift fire to
harden" (B73).
If Aristotle's report can be trusted, "the
elements too are gods" for Empedocles.36
There are, of course, similarities as well as
important differences between Empedocles'
divine roots and Hesiod's gods. Consider
first, the concept of privileges or spheres of
influence (r?Tatl) and allotment (pozpa) so
prominent in Hesiod's thought. For example, from her birth Aphrodite is given the
honor of going into the assembly of the
gods, and she is allotted a portion of activity in human love (Theog. 203-205). After
Zeus overcame his father Cronos, he distributed to the gods "their portions and
declared their privileges" (Theog. 74-75).
Hecate, who receives special attention in
the Theogony, holds privileges in heaven
and earth, sits by kings in judgment, gives
victory in battle and games, is nurse of the
young (415 f.). Empedocles also speaks of
the roots as having privileges: "Each is
master in a different province (rtpi~) and
each has its own character" (B17.28). But
unlike Hesiod's gods, except possibly for
Chaos, Earth, Tartarus, and Eros, Empedocles' roots are "all equal and coeval"
(B17.27).37 Moreover, the roots are immortal, not only in the sense of being
3 Gen. et corr. 333b20. See Guthrie, History, II,
p. 143, n. 3.
37 For further discussion of this point, see Jaeger, Theology, p. 139.
are begotten. Even at the first Chaos came

to be
(yIVE0-o)
and no more is said about
what, if anything, preceded it. In fact, the

vast collection of divine and semi-divine
names in the Theogony is organized in
descending series and gathered into successive generations, to the point that the
time interval in this scheme is measuredby
the genos, and the events that generally
take place are always genesis and tokos,
begetting and bearing. Yet, Empedocles'
roots, as well as Love and Strife, abide
eternally; they have no origin, and one can
no longer speak of the birth and death of
things in the cosmos, only of mixing and
the exchange of what has been mixed (B8).
But, most important, what were vaguely
described as the "roots" or "springs" of
earth and sea, Tartarus and sky in Hesiod's
Theogony become, and specifically so,
earth, air, fire, and water in Empedocles.
These are themselves the roots of all things,
and as is made clear in B22.1-3 they do not
lose their separate identities when they
mingle with each other to form the world:
"For all of these-the shining sun and earth
and sky and sea-are all matched in full
accord with their own parts which are scattered far from them in mortal things"
(compare the
7rI`TvKEV of
this verse with
in Theog. 728). The roots more7rEaaut

over are qualitatively unalterable: "but
these things are ever the same, but running through each other they form now
one thing, now another, and they are ever
continuously the same" (B 17.34-35). Despite their homogeneity, however, the roots
apparently can, under the influence of
Love, be drawn together into one. In fact,
there seems to be a nearly perfect blend
of the roots so that "then are discerned
neither the swift limbs of the sun nor the
shaggy strength of the earth nor the sea"
(B27.1-2). In other words, under the
reign of Love, the roots are so thoroughly
mixed or blended as to be indistinguishable,
156
and the form of the cosmos under this condition is a sphere "held fast in the close
obscurity of Harmony . . . rejoicing in its
circular stillness" (B27.3-4)."3 Aristotle
reports that this sphere was "the most

blessed god" for Empedocles,39and in B29,
the poet declares: "For no two branches
spring from its back, there / are no feet nor
nimble limbs, no reproductiveparts." The
same two verses are found in B 134, a fragment usually assigned to the Purifications,
but with the variant "hairy parts."
Two things stand out in the foregoing
account of Empedocles' doctrine of the
roots. First, the idea of the intermingling
of the roots under Love's influence so as to
form a unity may have been suggested by
Hesiod's roots of earth and sea which,
according to one interpretation, gradually
disappear into the underworldand became
so intertwined as to be indistinguishable.
Secondly, B29.1 echoes Hesiod's Theog.
150, and one need only recall Hesiod's terrible tale of Uranos' castration by Cronos
(Theog. 159 f.) to see the point of Empedocles' rejection of "parts of generation." In
other words, B29 (cf. B134), which presumably describes the intermingling of the
roots underLove, is also a disguisedpolemic
against Hesiodic (and no doubt Homeric)
conceptionsof deity. Only with the anthropomorphic deities of the Greek epic in the
backgroundcan Empedocles'desire to deny
human characteristics of his sphere be understood. In general, Empedocles' roots,
the origin of the concept being in Hesiod's
poems, are on the way to replacing the gods
of the Theogony. They have some of the
characteristics of these gods, but, for the
most part, are divested of human characteristics, and the way is prepared for a
natural descriptionof the world.
Despite the possibility that the roots had
an inherent power of movement, Empedocles' account of the origin and structure of
38On other possible translations of this verse,
see Guthrie, History, II, p. 169.
39Metaphysics 1000b3.
the cosmos would be incompletewere it not

for the action of Love and Strife. Like
the roots, they are everlasting (B 16) and
they are somehow equal to them: "baneful
Strife apart from them [the roots] equal in
all directionsand love among them equal in
length and in breadth" (B17.19-20). Generally speaking, Love has the function of
drawing together dissimilar entities, e.g.,
water and earth, whereas Strife is responsible for uniting like to like, e.g., water to
water. What is, of course, immediately
apparent in this scheme of things is how
indispensableLove is to the world at present. Under the influence of Strife the four
roots would be presumably separated into
four distinct masses (like to like), and
organic life would not be possible.40 Similarly, without Eros the theogony described
by Hesiod would probably not have been
possible, and as erotic, sexual imagery
played an importantpart in Hesiod's poem,
so too in that of Empedocles. Two of his
roots are male: Zeus and Aidoneus; two
are female: Hera and Nestis (though this
may be accidental), and the power responsible for the mingling of the roots is called
in the fragments Philotes, Aphrodite, Harmonia, Cypris, names suggestive of sexual
relations.41 Only the name Eros is not
found in the extant fragments, though Plutarch's report in De fac. lun. (926D) suggests that Empedocles could have used this
word as well: ". . . for Affection arose or
Aphrodite or Eros, as Empedocles says and

Parmenidesand Hesiod...." In a passage
reminiscentof Hesiod's description of Aphrodite's role in human affairs (Theog. 204206), Empedocles declares: "She too is
acknowledged by mortals as being rooted
in their limbs and through her they have
troughts of love and accomplish the works
of union, calling her Joy by name and
40 According to Solmsen's interpretation of Empedocles, Strife has built up the cosmos, and Love
fashions living beings within it. See his valuable
study, "Love and strife in Empedocles' cosmology," Phronesis 10 (1965) 109-148.
41See Solmsen, JHI 24, 476.
157
Aphrodite" (B17.21 f.) Through Love the

roots "are dear to one another" (B22.1);
they come together in Love and are desired
by one another. But despite his use of
sexual imagery, Empedocles does not refer,
at least in the remaining fragments, to the
mixings of the roots as "births" or "begettings." The theme of birth so prevalent in
the Theogony is replaced by that of mixture.
In Empedocles' poems Strife is usually
called Neikos, not Eris as in Hesiod (eris
does appear in the fragments though only
in the plural, B124.2 and B20.4, probably
in the sense of quarrels and discords).
Strife is also not explicitly said to be present in human activities (for Hesiod, Eris
like Aphrodite is present in human affairs)
though there is reason to think that Empedocles would have considered it familiar
to men in their dealings. In the Theogony
Eris was responsible for a considerable
progeny (226 f.), and when Empedocles
describes the joyless land in B121, one
cannot resist speculating that this too is a
wholly divested Love and Strife of some of

the characteristics of Hesiod's gods. Ultimately their relationshipis conceived much
as one of antagonism, conflict, and both
Plutarch and Proclus in later antiquity connected the strife of Empedocles with the
mythical wars of the Titans and Giants.42
Though he comes close to the concept, Empedocles does not speak of forces of attraction and repulsion; and his roots are not
elements. His ontology and cosmology in
its broad outlines are still dominatedby the
language and thought of Hesiod.
III. Other Themes Common to the
Thought of Hesiod and Empedocles
Although in many of the surviving fragments of his poems Empedoclesis concerned

with building the cosmos, his purpose is not
wholly cosmological or ontological. There
is also a distinct ethical or moral emphasis,
especially in the fragmentsusually assigned
to the Purifications. Even in some of the
fragments of On nature Empedocles' phracatalogue of Strife's offspring: ". . . Mur- seology is often ethical and not logical.43
der and Wrath and the tribes of other For example, he prays to avoid speaking
Dooms, and Wasting Disease and Corrup- "more than is sanctioned or right" (borx5),
tions and the Works of Dissolution wander not "more than is true" (B3.7); "what is
over the meadow of Disaster in Darkness." right"
(Kaho'v) can be said twice (B25).
Empedocles describes himself as a wan- In the Purifications there is, of course,
derer who trusted in hate (B115.14); men an unmistakable moral view of things, toare born from "conflicts and groanings" gether with various injunctions, e.g., to
(B124). But from the generally negative abstain from laurel leaves (B140), and
picture of Strife given by Empedocles it beans (B 141), and to cease from slaughwould be wrong to conclude that Strife is ter (B136). Notably in B135 Empedowholly destructive. As Hesiod distinguished cles declares: "But that which is lawful
two kinds of Strife, one of them found in
(voe?tpov)is spread continouously throughwholesome competition, so for Empedocles out the
broad-rulingair and the boundless
our present world could not exist without
of
heaven." Aristotle in the Rhetoric
Strife. The Strife which disrupts the sphere light
the fragment in conof Love is somehow responsible for the sep- (1373b) interpreted
with
junction
Sophocles' Antigone as exaration of the large masses of the rootsearth, air, sea, and heaven-and without
42 DK, I, p. 323. The reference to Plutarch is
these as backdrop, the organic world could De fac. lun. (926D). Proclus connects the Strife
not exist. In short, both Love and Strife of Empedocles with the war of the Giants, In Plaare necessary for the present world if there tonis Parmenidem comment. ed. Cousin (Paris
1864), p. 849, 13-15.
is to be a cosmos at all.
43This was observed by Millerd, On interpretaAs with his roots, so Empedocles has not tion, p. 25, n. 1.
158
pressing a universal law of nature. According to him, Empedocles forbade the killing
of living creatures, claiming that it is not
just for some and unjust for others. C.
E. Millerd commented on B135 that the
"thought is a remarkable one in this period."44 Yet this passage and other fragments of Empedocles' poems, e.g., B136
and B128, are not without parallels to
Hesiod's thought, especially that of Works
and days. A recurringtheme of this poem is
the necessity of just dealing and the avoidance of hybris. And although Hesiod never
defines justice, but only gives repeated examples, he is concerned to prove to his
fellow men that justice is best. Zeus has
ordained a system of rewards for the just
and punishment for the wicked in this
world; for "those who practice savage insolence and evil deeds Zeus, the far-seeingson
of Cronos, fixes a penalty" (v. 238); Zeus
has "thrice ten thousand immortal spirits
on the bounteous earth to watch over mortal men" (v. 252-253); the eye of Zeus
"seeing all things, understandingall things
S.does not fail to note what manner of
.
justice our city keeps" (v. 267-269). The
commands of Zeus are clear: "listen to
right and do not foster violence" (v. 212).
Finally, the son of Cronos ". ..
has or-
dained this law (vdpov)for men, that fishes

and beasts and winged birds should eat one
another, for right ( 1Kq) is not in them; but
to mankind he gave right which proves far

best" (275 f.). To recognize Dike is the
one thing that gives man his dignity and
sets him apart from animals.
It is regrettable that there is no context
for B 135 of Empedocles'poem, but perhaps
it can safely be said that if the fragment
pertains to the prohibition of killing living
creatures, it is Empedocles' recognition of
what Hesiod had expressed years before.
Men should not "feast on one another in
the thoughtlessnessof their minds" (B136)
nor should they kill other creatures, for
somehow all life is akin and sacred. Indeed
44Ibid., p. 94.
there was a time "whenall things were tame

and gentle to man, both beasts and birds,
and the fire of friendliness is kindled"
(B 130). Hesiod's recognition of a law implicit in the nature of things is echoed and
perhaps extended so that it embraces all
living things.
Yet another Hesiodic note is struck when
Empedocles looks back to a golden age
(though this epithet, so far as is known,
was not used by him). For Hesiod there
was a time during the reign of Cronos when
men, except for their mortality, lived like
gods; pain and old age were unknown, and
death came like sleep; earth bore fruit
abundantly without human labor (W. d.
110 f.). The age of "golden"men, however,
was supplanted by subsequent generations
of silver, brazen, and heroic men, culminating with a race of iron. This present age
is one of toil and sorrow; men will dishonor
their parents; destroy cities; oaths will not
be honored, and respect will fail. Like
Hesiod, Empedoclesheightens the darkness
and misery of the present age by contrast
with a former time:
Nor had they Aresas a god nor Cydoimosnor
was Zeus king nor Cronos nor Poseidon,but
Cypriswas queen. Her they propitiatedwith
holy gifts and painted figures of animalsand
perfumes,with sacrificeof unmixedmyrrhand
fragrantincense, casting to the ground libations of golden yellow honeycombs,and the
altar was not wet with the unmixedblood of
bulls but this was the greatest stain of guilt
among men after tearing out the life to eat
the limbs as food. (B128)
There are, of course, differences between

the two poets' conceptions of the past age.
For Hesiod the men of the golden age lived
under the reign of Cronos, who gained his
rule by violence, castrating Uranos his
father with a jagged sickle. Empedocles,
for his part, thinks of a period before that
of the Olympiangods, when blood sacrifices
were not made, and Aphrodite prevailed
everywhere. Indeed implicit in his account
of this formerage is a rejection of the gods
of Hesiod.
Possibly men, by observing Empedocles'
159
prohibitions, can be expected to draw closer

to this ideal age. But the idea of prohibiting certain forms of behavior was made
much of by Hesiod in the Works and days.
Perses or men in general are cautioned to
avoid the anger of the gods (v. 706), and
various injunctions follow, e.g., do not get a
reputation for being extravagant (v. 715),
take nothing to eat from vessels until sacrifice has been made over them (v. 748 f.),
do not urinate in springs (v. 758), etc.
Indeed, Empedocles' prohibition to abstain
from laurel leaves, though possibly connected with B127, which suggests that certain daimones become incarnated in laurel
trees, is explained by the fact that the
Muses grant to Hesiod a rod of sturdy
laurel (Theog. 30), the laurel being sacred
to Apollo, the Muses' associate (Theog.
94). Mantic properties were associated
with the laurel, and it is in connection with
the poetic craft that a final comparison
between Hesiod and Empedocles can be
drawn.
The character of Empedocles has been a
subject of much speculation and writing.
Charlatan, medicine-man, mystic are some
of the judgments made about him. Especially perplexing is his claim to go among
men as an "immortal god, no longer mortal" (B112.4); crowds desire to hear his
prophecies and words of healing. Claims
like these seem preposterousin our present
literate, scientific, and technological age.
But the key to understanding Empedocles,
is given in the fragmentsof his poems when
they are read in conjunction with Hesiod's
views on poetry as expressed in the Theogony, 75 f. The important fragments of
Empedocles' poems are B 131 and B146:
But if for the sake of creaturesof a day, O
immortal Muse, it has pleased thee to allow
my work to go through thy thoughts, stand
beside me now as I pray, O Calliope,while I
show forth a sound doctrineabout the gods.
(B131)
But at last they becomeprophetsand singers

and physicians and leaders among mortal men;
from thence they
honors. (B 146)
rise up as gods
chief
in
Compare these fragments with some lines

in Theog. 75 f.:
These things then the Muses sang who dwell
on Olympus . . . Cleio and Euterpe, Thaleia
... and Calliope,who surpassesthem all, for
she accompaniesrespectedprinces .... all the
peoplelook on him while he decides .... And
when he passes through a gathering, they
greet him as a god with gracious reverence,
and he is distinguishedamong the assembled.
For it is through the Muses and far-shooting
Apollo that there are singersand harpistson
earth; but princes are from Zeus, and happy
is he whom the Museslove .... For though a
man have sorrow and grief in his newlytroubledspirit and lives in dread becausehis
heart is distressed,yet, when a singer,servant
of the Muses,chantsthe gloriousdeedsof former men and the blessedgods of Olympus,at
once he forgets his heaviness and does not
even remember his sorrows.
There are distinct echoes of this passage of

Hesiod's Theogony in the fragmentsof Empedocles quoted previously: for both poets,
singers or bards (doitool in Hesiod, Theog.
95; VvoirodXo in Empedocles B146.1) and
princes (/oatXk^Esin Hesiod) or chiefs (in
Empedocles the word is ambiguous; 7rpdoL
could mean "fighters in the front ranks")

have an important function. For Hesiod
princes are greeted with respect and treated
like gods; the bard has a healing influence
on his audience.45 Calliope appears, and
though she is the queen of epic poetry, she
is first identified by Hesiod; Van Groningen has seen her as a vestige of Hesiodic
influence on Empedocles.46 There is little
doubt that for both poets the bard has an
important place in society, and in both
there is an ambiguity in their treatment.
In Hesiod the prince is regarded as if he
45B146 also shows great similarity to Od.
17.382-385: "But whoever summons a stranger,
having gone to him himself, unless it be one of
those who are masters of public crafts, a prophet,
or a healer of ills, or a builder, or indeed a divine
minstrel, who gives delight with his song?" In
this passage the bard is again given a position of
prominence in his society.
4GB. A. Van Groningen, La composition litte'raire archaique grecque (Amsterdam 1958), p. 218,
n. 2.
160
JACKSONP. HERSHBELL
were a kind of poet, though the social functions are distinguishable. E. A. Havelock
in discussing the passage has observed:
"The prince wields political power; he is
therefore Zeus' child. The minstrel wields
power over words; he therefore is the child
of Apollo and the Muses. But the two
kinds of power are somehow coeval, linked
together. In practical terms a prince might
formulate his own edicts and if he could
and did, the greater might be his influence.
More likely the poet did it for him. Hence,
earlier in this passage, and with the same
bifocal vision, Hesiod had spoken of the
'Muse' consorting with the prince: this
symbolizes the minstrel standing by his side
attendant to his words which he is to reframe in epe for the audience . ... "47 A
full context for the fragments of Empedocles is lacking, but it is difficult to believe
that his linking together of healer, bard,
prophet, and leader is wholly accidental.
In his own life he was at least bard and
leader if the tradition can be trusted that
he was active in the politics of Akragas.
And it would not be amiss to view his function of healer in connection with his poetic
gift. The passage from Hesiod suggests
that the bard had a therapeutic effect, at
least on his hearer's psyche. Similarly in
other cultures the bard is consideredto have
healing influence.48 One need only recall
that Apollo himself was the associate of
the Muses and god of healing (he may be
the god without human characteristics,the
god of thought mentioned in B134; at least
47
he is accordingto the report of Ammonius).

Whether the same or similar cultural conditions prevailed in both the time of Hesiod
and that of Empedocles is difficult to say.
There is reason to think, however, that no
vast strides had been made in literacy, and
the common man at least was dependent on
those who could memorize the formulaic
traditions of the past. Ancient Greece was
predominantly an oral culture and within
this Empedocles must not be seen as a
charlatan, but as the aoidos, "the singer of
tales.""49He differs, of course, from many
of those before him, including Hesiod. His
mythos, the content of his poems, is no
longer the tales of glorious deeds of men
and gods. On the contrary, he will tell how
worlds come to be and how they end; how
one can gain knowledge of and control over
the environment; and in the eyes of his
contemporaries,he stood, like other bards,
as a mediator between the world of sense
and the world of spirit.
IV. Conclusion
This study of Hesiod and Empedocles
has been hampered,as any study of the latter must be, by the lack of the complete
poems of Empedocles. It is tempting to
speculate, for example, that Empedocles
also recounted a theogony like Hesiod in
the lost sections of his poems. In introducing B128 Porphyry (De abst. II 20,
borrowed from Theophrastus' De pietate)
says the fragment occurs "when he (Empedocles) writes concerning the generation
E. A. Havelock,Prefaceto Plato (Cambridge, of the gods (O0oyovia) and on sacrifices."
Mass. 1963), p. 110.
48Compare the following passage in the Mahabharatawith B111 of Empedocles'poem (considered spuriousby Van Groningen,see footnote
11 of this study):
And thosewho will recitethis greatadventureof Nala,
and thosewhowill hearit attentively,misfortune
shall not visit them. . . . He shall be free from
sickness...
The passageis quoted in A. B. Lord, "Homerand

other poetry"in A companionto Homer,ed. A. J.
B. Waceand F. H. Stubbings(New York 1963), p.
199-200.
But all one reads in the fragment is that

Cypris is a very old goddess, existing before Cronos, Zeus, Poseidon, Ares, and
Cydoimos. In any case, Porphyry's remark
49On the importance and function of the bard
in oral culture, see ibid., p. 181-184, 197 f. Havelock's book, Preface, is a well-argued attempt to
show that Greece, at least until the time of Plato,
was predominantly an oral culture and that Plato
was trying to demolish the hold of the epic on the
intellect of his countrymen.
161
seems not to be supported by the text. But

whether Empedocles wrote a theogony or
not, there is little doubt that he was influenced in other respects by Hesiod. Empedocles' originality and importance,especially
in the development of the later doctrine of
the four elements, has not been denied. Nor
has it been maintained that he took this or
other theories wholesale from Hesiod. No
doubt the origins of the four elements can
be found in the latter's poems.50 What
Empedocles did was to borrowthe language
of Hesiod, e.g., that of "roots," as well as
some conceptions of Hesiod, notably Love
and Strife, reinterpretand develop them to
a point where a reasonably coherent and
complete picture of the universe could be
drawn, a picture largely divested of the
theological apparatus of the epic tradition.
In this respect, Empedocles went vastly
beyond Hesiod. Divinity is not to be found
in the anthropomorphicgods of the past,
but in the roots, and the cosmic sphere, and
in the action of Love and Hate. Beginning
with these a universeof myriad things, even
as minute as the eye and ear, can be described and explained. The epic of Greek
tradition is to be replaced by a new epic,
5oFor an interesting discussion of the origins of
the doctrine of the four elements and Hesiod's role
in the development, see C. H. Kahn, Anaximander
and the origins of Greek cosmology (New York
1960), p. 134 f.
one on a vaster and granderscale even than

the sack of Troy or the birth of the gods.
But in Empedocles' undertaking lay the
seeds of dissolution. The language and
thought of epic poetry, imagistic and concrete, cannot compete with the exactness
and precision of a quasi-scientific prose.
Empedocles' epic, like those of Homer and
Hesiod, was eventually to be supplanted by
the dialogue of Plato and the treatise of
Aristotle.51
Guthrie sees B17.14 (". .. for learning
will increase your understanding") as perhaps aimed at Heraclitus B40.52 But it is

in this fragmentthat Hesiod, among others,
is attacked by Heraclitus:
Much learningdoes not teach one to have
intelligence;
for it would have taught Hesiodand
Pythagoras,
Xenophanes and Hecataeus.
Empedocleswas no doubt critical of Hesiod,

especially of the latter's views of the gods,
and would have agreed with Xenophanes'
polemic; but it is tempting to see him also
as a defender of Hesiod.
The University of North Dakota

51 Empedocles was the last important Greek
thinker to use verse as a medium for his views on
reality.
52 Guthrie, History, II, p. 154, note on v. 14.

Hesiod and Empedocles

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Hesiod and Empedocles

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Hesiod and Empedocles

Author(s): Jackson P. Hershbell

HESIOD AND EMPEDOCLES

Hesiod, socratics such as W. K. C. Guthrie and W.

and almost two centuries later testified

Jaeger, have discussed points of comparison

Flickwerk with little or no originality. In

HESIOD AND EMPEDOCLES

larity between some of the ideas and even

has recently been argued that B111 (a

accept the genuineness of the underworld passage.

of its occurrencein the first fragmentof On

Kranz, Neue Jahrbiicher 27, 78.

of admonitorypoetry (it is a Mahngedicht,

. wretched things of shame"

(v. 26), and in the Works and days, this

those men, according to Empedocles, whose

HESIOD AND EMPEDOCLES

and the sea

suggests that Hesiod has previously been

roots of the earth (yq9s k1aL)

words often taken as a deliberate

In B82.2 the expression ir uTIaLapo^UL

the deceptive order of my words" (.

149.16 Again when Empedocles describes

yielding no harvest" grew above Tartarus.15

in part, Hesiod's descriptionof the giants in

and whose fifty heads are set on strong

is, moreover,tempting to conclude that Empedocles' description of monstrous figures,

Hesiod had described how Cronos who

728, as Traglia following Diels noted, "the

from metal working and found in Homer,17

an ancient decree of the gods, sealed with

is considered by Knatz and later Wilamowitz to be an addition from the Theogony,

firm-based oaths. . . ." What follows sug-

gests not only a strong Hesiodic influence

solemn manner an ". . . oracle of Necessity,

the spirits (8altovjs)

who have been al-

." First, these verses remind one

which is found in another fragment of Empedocles (B84.7). In Hesiod it describes

of Hesiod's Works and days, where there is

HESIOD AND EMPEDOCLES

somehow preserved or destroyed in the

Though there is only one name the same,

pared the variety of these names with those

262 and with

Oceanid ?od of Theog. 354. Both poets

(B 122.4). Lastly, Emped-

fragments assigned to Empedocles' poem

is perhaps derived Vergil's "felix qui potuit

val~a awr-avro.255 A similar sentiment is also

found at the end of the Works and days

2 E. Bignone, Empedocle (Turin 1916), p. 218,

There is, of course, a tendency, no doubt

Especially in the description of the

heaven, and even Tartarus.

of the Theogony, the "roots of earth" in the

So then, there was not one kind of Strife, but

the shiftless to work; for a man grows eager

In other words, Strife has not only a

all things which we now see came forth:

nology and thought of the latter are taken

fragment refers to the roots is