Empedokles says that trees were the first living creatures to grow up out of the earth, before the sun was spread out, and before day and night were distinguished ; that, from the symmetry of their mixture, they contain the proportion of male and female ; that they grow, rising up owing to the heat which isin the earth, so that they are parts of the earth just as embryos are parts of the uterus; that fruits are excretions of the water and fire in plants, and that those which have a deficiency of moisture shed their leaves when that is evaporated by the summer heat, while those which have more moisture remain evergreen, as in the case of the laurel, the olive, and the palm; that the differences in taste are due to variations in the particles contained in the earth and to the plants drawing different particles from it, as in the case of vines; for it is not the difference of the vines that makes wine good, but that of the soil which nourishes them. Aet. v. 26, 4 (R. P. 172).
Aristotle finds fault with Empedokles for explaining
the double growth of plants, upwards and downwards,
by the opposite natural motions of the earth and fire
contained in them.! For “natural motions” we must,
of course, substitute the attraction of like for like
(δ 109). Theophrastos says much the same thing.”
The growth of plants, then, is to be regarded as an
incident in that separation of the elements which
Strife is bringing about. Some of the fire which is
still beneath the earth (fr. 52) meeting in its upward
1 Arist. de An. B, 4. 415 Ὁ 28. 2 Theophr. ae causzis plantarum, i. 12, 5.
Empedokles of Akragas 279
course with earth, still moist with water and “ running”
down so as to “reach its own kind,” unites with it,
under the influence of the Love still left in the world,
to form a temporary combination, which we call a tree
or a plant.
At the beginning of the pseudo-Aristotelian 77veatzse
on Plants," we are told that Empedokles attributed
desire, sensation, and the capacity. for pleasure and
pain to plants, and he rightly saw that the two sexes
are combined in them. This is mentioned by Aetios,
and discussed in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise. If
we may so far trust that Byzantine translation from a
Latin version of the Arabic,? we get a most valuable
hint as to the reason. Plants, we are there told, came
into being “in an imperfect state of the world,”® in
fact, at a time when Strife had not so far prevailed as
to differentiate the sexes. We shall see that the same
thing applies to the original race of animals in this
world. It is strange that Empedokles never observed
the actual process of generation in plants, but confined
himself to the statement that they spontaneously “ bore
eggs” (fr. 79), that is to say, fruit.
116. The fragments which deal with the evolution
of animals (57-62) must be understood in the light
of the statement (fr. 17) that there is a double coming
into being and a double passing away of mortal things.
Empedokles describes two processes of evolution,
which take exactly opposite courses, one of them
1 [Arist.] de plantis, A, 1. 815 a 15.
® Alfred the Englishman translated the Arabic version into Latin in the reign of Henry III. It was retranslated from this version into Greek at the Renaissance by a Greek resident in Italy.
3 A, 2. 817 Ὁ 35, ‘mundo. . . diminuto et non perfecto in complemento suo” (Alfred).
Evolution of animals.
280 Early. Greek Philosophy
belonging to the period of Love and the other to that
of Strife. The four stages of this double evolution
are accurately distinguished in a passage of Aetios,’ and
we shall see that there is evidence for referring two of
them to the second period of the world’s history and
two to the fourth.
The first stage is that in which the various parts of
animals arise separately. It is that of heads without
necks, arms without shoulders, and eyes without fore-
heads (fr. 57). It is clear that this must be the first
stage in what we have called the fourth period of the
world’s history, that in which Love is coming in and
Strife passing out. Aristotle distinctly refers it to the
period of Love, by which, as we have seen, he means
the period when Love is increasing.” It is in
accordance with this that he also says these scattered
members were subsequently put together by Love.®
The second stage is that in which the scattered
limbs are united. At first, they were combined in all
possible ways (fr. 59). There were oxen with human
heads, creatures with double faces and double breasts,
and all manner of monsters (fr. 61). Those of them
that were fitted to survive did so, while the rest
perished. That is how the evolution of animals took
place in the period of Love.*
1 Aet. v. 19, 5 (R. P. 173). Plato has made use of the idea of reversed evolution in the Poléticus myth.
2 Arist. de Caelo, T, 2. 300 Ὁ 29 (R. P. 173 a). Cf. de Gen. An. A, 17. 722 Ὁ 17, where fr. 57 is introduced by the words καθάπερ ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς γεννᾷ ἐπὶ τῆς Φιλότητος. Simplicius, de Cae/o, p. 587, 18, expresses the same thing by saying μουνομελῇ ἔτι τὰ γυῖα ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Νείκους διακρίσεως ὄντα ἐπλανᾶτο.
3 Arist. de An. I’, 6. 430 a 30(R. P. 173 a).
4 This is well put by Simplicius, de Caelo, p. 587, 20. It is dre τοῦ Neixous ἐπεκράτει λοιπὸν ἡ Φιλότης . . . ἐπὶ THs Φιλότητος οὖν ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐκεῖνα εἶπεν, οὐχ ὡς ἐπικρατούσης ἤδη τῆς Φιλότητος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς μελλούσης
Empedokles of Akragas 281
The third stage belongs to the period when the
unity of the Sphere is being destroyed by Strife. It is,
therefore, the first stage in the evolution of our present
world. It begins with “whole-natured forms” in which
there is not as yet any distinction of sex or species.’
They are composed of earth and water, and are
produced by the upward motion of fire which is seeking
to reach its like.
In the fourth stage, the sexes and species have
been separated, and new animals no longer arise from
the elements, but are produced by generation. We
shall see presently how Empedokles conceived this
to operate.
In both these processes of evolution, Empedokles
was guided by the idea of the survival of the fittest.
Aristotle severely criticises this. “We may suppose,”
he says, “ that all things have fallen out accidentally just
as they would have done if they had been produced for
some end. Certain things have been preserved because
they had spontaneously acquired a fitting structure,
while those which were not so put together have
perished and are perishing, as Empedokles says of the
oxen with human faces.”* This, according to Aristotle,
leaves too much to chance. One curious instance has
been preserved. Vertebration was explained by saying
that an early invertebrate animal tried to turn round
and broke its back in sodoing. This was a favourable
variation and so survived.’ It should be noted that it
clearly belongs to the period of Strife, and not, like ᾿
ἐπικρατεῖν. In Phys. p. 371, 33, he says the oxen with human heads were κατὰ τὴν τῆς Pirlas ἀρχήν.
1 Cf. Plato, Symp. 189 6.
2 Arist. Phys. B, 8. 198 Ὁ 29 (R. P. 173).
3 Arist. de Part. An. A, 1. 640 a 19.
Physiology.
282 Early Greek Philosophy
the oxen with human heads, to that of Love. The
survival of the fittest was the law of both processes of
evolution.
117. The distinction of the sexes was an important
result of the gradual differentiation brought about by
the entrance of Strife into the world. Empedokles
differed from the theory given by Parmenides in his
Second Part (§ 95) in holding that the warm element
preponderated in the male sex, and that males were
conceived in the warmer part of the uterus (fr. 65).
The foetus was formed partly from the male and partly
from the female semen (fr. 63); and it was just the fact
that the substance of a new being’s body was. divided
between the male and the female that produced desire
when the two were brought together by sight (fr.64). A
certain symmetry of the pores in the male and female
semen is, of course, necessary for procreation, and from
its absence Empedokles explained the sterility of mules.
The children most resemble that parent who contributed
most to their formation. The influence of statues and
pictures was also noted, however, as modifying the
appearance of the offspring. Twins and triplets were
due to a superabundance and division of the semen.'
As to the growth of the foetus in the uterus, Em-
pedokles held that it was enveloped in a membrane,
and that its formation began on the thirty-sixth day
and was completed on the forty-ninth. The heart was
formed first, the nails and such things last. © Respira-
tion did not begin till the time of birth, when the fluids
round the fcetus were withdrawn. Birth took place
in the ninth or seventh month, because the day had
1 Aet. v. 10, 1; 11,1; 12, 2; 14, 2. Cf. Fredrich, Aippokratische Untersuchungen, pp. 126 564,
Empedokles of Akragas 4283
been originally nine months long, and afterwards
seven. Milk arises on the tenth day of the eighth
month (fr. 68).
Death was the final separation by Strife of the fire
and earth in the body, each of which had.all along
been striving to “reach its own kind.” Sleep was a
temporary separation to a certain extent of the fiery
element.? At death the animal is resolved into its
elements, which perhaps enter into fresh combinations,
perhaps become permanently united with “their own
kind.” There can be no question here of an immortal
soul.
Even in life, we may see the attraction of like to
like operating in animals just as it did in the upward
and downward growth of plants. Hair is the same
thing as foliage (fr. 82); and, generally speaking, the
fiery part of animals tends upwards and the earthy
part downwards, though there are exceptions, as may
be seen in the case of certain -shell-fish (fr. 76), where
the earthy part is above. These exceptions are only
possible because there is still a great deal of Love
in the world. We also see the attraction of like for
like in the different habits of the various species of
animals. Those that have most fire in them fly up
into the air; those in which earth preponderates take
to the earth, as did the dog which always sat upon a
tile.® Aquatic animals are those in which water pre-
dominates. This does not, however, apply to fishes,
which are very fiery, and take to the water to cool
themselves.‘
1 Aet. v. 15, 33 21,1 (Dox. p. 190).
2 Aet. v. 25, 4 (Dox. p. 437).
3 Aet. v. 19, 5 (Dox. p. 431). Cf. Eth. Σιμά. H, 1. 1235 a 11. 4 Arist: de Respir. 14. 477 a 32; Theophr. de causis plant. i. 21.
Perception.
284 Early Greek Philosophy
Empedokles paid great attention to the subject of respiration, and his very ingenious explanation of it has been preserved in a continuous form (fr. 100). We breathe, he held, through all the pores of the skin, not merely through the organs of respiration. The cause of the alternate inspiration and expiration of the breath was the movement of the blood from the heart to the surface of the body and back again, which was explained by the 2lepsydra.
The nutrition and growth of animals is, of course,
to be explained from the attraction of like to like.
Each part of the body has pores into which the appro-
priate food will fit. Pleasure and pain were derived
from the absence or presence of like elements, that is, of
nourishment which would fit the pores. Tears and
sweat arose from a disturbance which curdled the blood ;
they were, so to say, the whey of the blood.’
118. For the theory of perception held by Empe- dokles we have the original words of Theophrastos :—
Empedokles speaks in the same way of all the senses, and says that perception is due to the “effluences” fitting into the passages of each sense. And that is why one cannot judge the objects of another; for the passages of some of them are too wide and those of others too narrow for the sensible object, so that the latter either goes through without touching or cannot enter at all. ΚΕ. P. 177 Ὁ.
He tries, too, to explain the nature of sight. He says that the interior of the eye consists of fire, while round about it is earth and air,? through which its rarity enables the fire to pass like the light in lanterns (fr. 84). The passages of the