first place that it is called a god in the fragments just as the elements are, and that Aristotle more than once refers to it in the same way.’ We must remember that Love itself is a part of this mixture,’ while Strife surrounds or encompasses it on every side just as the Boundless encompasses the world in earlier systems. Strife, however, is not boundless, but equal in bulk to each of the four roots and to. Love.
At the appointed time, Strife begins to enter into
the Sphere and Love to go out of it (frs. 30, 31).
The fragments by themselves throw little light on this ;
but Aetios and the Plutarchean Stromatezs have between
them preserved a very fair tradition of what Theo-
phrastos said on the point.
Empedokles held that Air was first separated out and
secondly Fire. Next came Earth, from which, highly com-
pressed as it was by the impetus‘of its revolution, Water
gushed forth. From the water Mist was produced by
1 Arist. de Gen. Corr. B, 6. 333 Ὁ 21(R. P. 168 e); AZez. B, 4. 1000 a 29 (R. P. 166i). Cf. Simpl. Pzys. p. 1124, 1 (R. P. 167 Ὁ). In other places Aristotle speaks of it as ‘‘the One.” Cf. de Gen. Corr. A, 1. 315 a7 (R. P. 168 e); 2722. B, 4. 1000 a 29 (R. P. 1661); A, 4. 985 a 28 (R. P. 20.). This, however, involves a slight Aristotelian ‘‘development.” It is not quite the same thing to say, as Empedokles does, that all things come to- gether ‘‘into one,” and to say that they come together “into the One.” The latter expression suggests that they lose their distinct and proper character in the Sphere, and thus become something like Aristotle’s own ‘*matter.” As has been pointed out (p. 265, n. 3), it is hard for Aristotle to grasp the conception of irreducible elements ; but there can be no doubt that in the Sphere, as in their separation, the elements remain ‘‘ what they are” for Empedokles. As Aristotle also knows quite well, the Sphere is a mixture. Compare the difficulties about the ‘‘One” of Anaximander discussed in Chap. I. § 15.
2 This accounts for Aristotle’s statement, which he makes once positively (Met. B, 1. 996 a 7) and once very doubtfully (JZet. Τ', 4. 1001 a 12), that Love was the substratum of the One in just the same sense as the Fire of Herakleitos, the Air of Anaximenes, or the Water of Thales. He thinks that all the elements become merged in Love, andsso lose their identity. In this case, it is in Love he recognises his own ‘‘ matter.”
Empedokles of Akragas 273
evaporation. The heavens were formed out of the Air and the sun out of the Fire, while terrestrial things were condensed from the other elements. Aet. ii. 6. 3 (Dox. p. 334; R. P. 170).
Empedokles held that the Air when separated off from the original mixture of the elements was spread round in a circle. After the Air, Fire running outwards, and not finding any other place, ran up under the solid that surrounded the Air.! There were two hemispheres revolving round the earth, the one altogether composed of fire, the other of a mixture of air and a little fire. The latter he supposed to be the Night. The origin of their motion he derived from the fact of fire preponderating in one hemisphere owing to its accumulation there. Ps.-Plut. Strom. fr. 10 (Dox. p. 582; ΕΒ. P. 170 8).
The first of the elements to be separated out by
Strife, then, was Air, which took the outermost position
surrounding the world (cf. fr. 38). We must not, how-
ever, take the statement that it surrounded the world
“in a circle” toostrictly. It appears that Empedokles
regarded the heavens as shaped like an egg.” Here,
probably, we have a trace of Orphic ideas. At any
rate, the outer circle of the Air became solidified or
frozen, and we thus get a crystalline vault as the
boundary of the world. We note that it was Fire
which solidified the Air and turned it to ice. Fire in
general had a solidifying power.® *
In its upward rush Fire displaced a portion of the
Air in the upper half of the concave sphere formed by
the frozen sky. This air then sunk downwards,
carrying with it a small portion of the fire. In this
1 For the phrase τοῦ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα πάγου cf. Περὶ διαίτης, i. 10, 1, πρὸς τὸν περιέχοντα πάγον. Et, M. s.v. Bndds . . . τὸν ἀνωτάτω πάγον καὶ περιέχοντα τὸν πάντα ἀέρα. This probably comes ultimately from Anaximenes. Cf. Chap. I. p. 82, n. 1.
2 Aet. ii. 31, 4 (Dox. p. 363).
3 Aet. ii. 11, 2 (R. P 170 c).
‘The sun,
moon, stars,
and earth.
274 Early Greek Philosophy
way, two hemispheres were produced: one, consisting
entirely of fire, the diurnal hemisphere ; the other, the -
nocturnal, consisting of air with a little fire. .
The accumulation of Fire in the upper hemisphere |
disturbs the equilibrium of the heavens and causes them
to revolve; and this revolution not only produces the
alternation of day and night, but by its rapidity keeps’
the heavens and the earth in their places. This was
illustrated, Aristotle tells us, by the simile of a cup of
water whirled round at the end of a string.’ The
verses which contained this remarkable account of so-
called “centrifugal force” have been lost ; but the ex-
perimental illustration is in the manner of Empedokles.
113. It will be observed that day and night have been explained without reference to the sun. Day is produced by the light of the fiery diurnal hemisphere, while night is the shadow thrown by the earth when the fiery hemisphere is on the other side of it (fr. 48). What, then, is the sun? The Plutarchean Stromateis 2 again give us the answer: “The sun is not fire in substance, but a reflexion of fire like that which comes from water.” Plutarch himself makes one of his personages say: “ You laugh at Empedokles for saying that the sun is a product of the earth, arising from the reflexion of the light of heaven, and once more ‘ flashes back to Olympos with untroubled countenance.’ ”®
1 Arist. de Caelo, B, 13. 295 a 16(R. P. 170 b). The experiment with τὸ ἐν τοῖς κυάθοις ὕδωρ, which κύκλῳ τοῦ κυάθου φερομένου πολλάκις κάτω τοῦ χαλκοῦ γινόμενον ὅμως οὐ φέρεται κάτω, reminds us of the experiment with the ζώεγαγα in fr. 100.
2 [Plut.] Strom. fr. 10 (Dox. p. 582, irs Ri P3950 e),
3 Plut. ve Pyth. Or. 400 Ὁ (R. P. 170 c). We must keep the MS. reading περὶ γῆν with Bernardakis and Diels. The reading περιαυγῇ in R. P. is a conjecture of Wyttenbach’s ; but cf. Aet. ii. 20, 13, quoted in the next note,
Empedokles of Akragas 275
Aetios says:' “ Empedokles held that there were two suns: one, the archetype, the fire in one hemisphere of the world, filling the whole hemisphere always stationed opposite its own reflexion; the other, the visible sun, its reflexion in the other hemisphere, that which is filled with air mingled with fire, produced by the reflexion of the earth, which is round, on the crystalline sun, and carried round by the motion of the fiery hemisphere. Or, to sum it up shortly, the sun is a reflexion of the terrestrial fire.”
These passages, and especially the last, are by no
means clear. The reflexion which we call the sun
cannot be in the hemisphere opposite to the fiery one ;
for that is the nocturnal hemisphere. We must say
rather that the light of the fiery hemisphere is reflected
by the earth on to the fiery hemisphere itself in one
concentrated flash. From this it follows that the
appearance which we call the sun is the same size as
the earth, We may explain the origin of this view as
follows. It had just been discovered that the moon
shone by reflected light, and there is always a tendency
to give any novel theory a wider application than it
really admits of. In the early part of the fifth century
B.C.. men saw reflected light everywhere; the Pytha-
goreans held a very similar view, and when we come to
them, we shall see why Aetios, or rather his source,
expresses it by speaking of “two suns.”
Δ Aet. ii, 20, 13 (Dox. p. 350), ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς δύο ἡλίους") τὸν μὲν ἀρχέτυπον, πῦρ ὃν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τοῦ κόσμου, πεπληρωκὸς τὸ ἡμισφαίριον, αἰεὶ κατ᾽ ἀντικρὺ τῇ ἀνταυγείᾳ ἑαυτοῦ τεταγμένον" τὸν δὲ φαινόμενον, ἀνταύγειαν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τῷ τοῦ ἀέρος τοῦ θερμομιγοῦς πεπληρωμένῳ, ἀπὸ κυκλοτεροῦς τῆς γῆς κατ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν γιγνομένην εἰς τὸν ἥλιον τὸν κρυσταλλοειδῇῆ, συμπεριελκομένην δὲ τῇ κινήσει τοῦ muplvov. ὡς δὲ βραχέως εἰρῆσθαι συντεμόντα, ἀνταύγειαν εἷναι τοῦ περὶ τὴν γῆν πυρὸς τὸν ἥλιον.
276 Early Greek Philosophy
It was probably in this connexion that Empedokles
announced that light takes some time to travel, though
its speed is so great as to escape our perception.’
“The moon,” we are told, “was composed of air
cut off by the fire; it was frozen just like hail, and
had its light from the sun.” It is, in other words, a
disc of frozen air, of the same substance as the solid
sky which surrounds the heavens. Diogenes says that
Empedokles taught it was smaller than the sun, and
Aetios tells us it was only half as distant from the
earth.’
Empedokles did not attempt to explain the fixed
stars by reflected light, nor even the planets. They
were fiery, made out of the fire which the air carried
with it when forced beneath the earth by the upward
rush of fire at the first separation, as we saw above.
The fixed stars were attached to the frozen air; the
planets moved freely.’
Empedokles was acquainted (fr. 42) with the true
theory of solar eclipses, which, along with that of the
moon’s light, was the great discovery of this period.
He also knew (fr. 48) that night is the conical shadow
of the earth, and not a sort of exhalation.
Wind was explained from the opposite motions of
the fiery and airy hemispheres. Rain was caused by
the compression of the Air, which forced any water
there might be in it out of its pores in the form of
drops. Lightning was fire forced out from the clouds
in much the same way.*
1 Arist. de Sensu, 6. 446 ἃ 28; de An. B, 7. 418 Ὁ 20.
2 [Plut.] Strom. fr. 10 (Dox. p. 582, 12; R. P. 170 c) ; Diog. viii. 77 ; Aet. ii. 31, 1 (cf. Dox. p. 63).
8 Aet. ii. 13, 2 and 11 (Dox. pp. 341 sqq.).
4 Aet. iii. 3, 7; Arist. AZeteor. B, 9. 369 Ὁ 12, with Alexander’s commentary.
Empedokles of Akragas 277
The earth was at first mixed with water, but the
increasing compression caused by the velocity of the
world’s revolution made the water gush forth, so that
the sea is called “the sweat of the earth,” a phrase to
which Aristotle objects as a mere poetical metaphor.
The saltness of the sea was explained by the help of
this analogy.’
114. Empedokles went on to show how the four
elements, mingled in different proportions, gave rise
‘to perishable things, such .as bones, flesh, and the like.
These, of course, are the work of Love; but this in no
way contradicts the view taken above as to the period
of evolution to which this world belongs. Love is by
no means banished from the world yet, though one
day it will be. At present, it is still able to form
combinations of elements; but, just because Strife is
ever increasing, they are all perishable.
The possibility of organic combinations depends
upon the fact that there is still water in the earth, and
even fire (fr. 52). The warm springs of Sicily were a
proof of this, not to speak of Etna. These springs
Empedokles appears to have explained by one of his
characteristic images, drawn this time from the heating
of warm baths.” It will be noted that his similes
are nearly all drawn from human inventions and
manufactures.
115. Plants and animals were formed from the four elements under the influence of Love and Strife.
1 Arist. Meteor. B, 3. 357 a 24; Aet. iii. 16,3 (R. P. 170 Ὁ). Cf. the clear reference in Arist. Meteor. B, 1. 353 Ὁ 11.
2 Seneca, Q. Wat. iii. 24: ‘‘ facere solemus dracones et miliaria et complures formas in quibus aere tenui fistulas struimus per declive circum- datas, ut saepe eundem ignem ambiens aqua per tantum fluat spatii quantum efficiendo calori sat est. frigida itaque intrat, effluit calida. idem sub terra Empedocles-existimat fieri.”
Organic com- binations.
Plants,
278 Early Greek Philosophy
The fragments which deal with trees and plants
are 77-81; and these, taken along with certain
Aristotelian statements and the doxographical tradition,
enable us to make out pretty fully what the theory
was. The text of Aetios is very corrupt here ; but it
may, perhaps, be rendered as follows :—