Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:20:33.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EMPEDOCLES AND THE BIRTH OF TREES: RECONSTRUCTING P.STRASB. GR. INV. 1665–6, ENS. D–F 10B–18

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2019

Chiara Ferella
Chiara Ferella*
Affiliation:
Johannes Gutenberg–Universität Mainz
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The reconstruction of ensemble d–f of the Akhmîm Papyrus, better known as the Strasbourg Papyrus, which attests approximately eighteen of the over seventy new lines of Empedocles’ physical poem, has drawn the attention of scholars over recent years. Thanks to the good condition of the papyrus and the coincidence with two Empedoclean lines, already known from the indirect tradition, ensemble d–f 1–10a presents a well-restored text and an intelligible sense. In contrast, because of the damaged state of the papyrus, the restoration of d–f 10b–18 is more complicated. These lines seem to describe a life-generative process, but what process was Empedocles talking about? Some resemblances between these papyrus lines and the lines of another Empedoclean fragment, DK 31 B 62, have suggested to scholars, notably to A. Martin and O. Primavesi in 1999 and M. Rashed in 2011, that the lines of the papyrus depict, just like DK 31 B 62, the generation of whole-natured beings (οὐλοφυεῖς; cf. B 62.4). Other scholars, however, such as R. Janko in 2004 (see n. 1) and A. Laks and G.W. Most in 2016, show more caution and leave the possibility open that Empedocles is here talking about the generation of something else.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , May 2019 , pp. 75 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Professors Markus Asper, Alberto Bernabé, Franco Ferrari, Renate Schlesier, David Sider and the anonymous referee of CQ for their helpful comments and suggestions on a previous draft of this paper. I am also grateful to the participants in the conference ‘Phusis kai Phuta: Nature and Plants in Early Greek Thought’, held in Paris in June 2019, where I discussed an earlier version of this paper. Many thanks, additionally, to the Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg for their help and for the digital images of the papyrus.

References

1 With the term ‘ensemble’ the first editors indicated a number of papyrus fragments that, on a papyrological basis, can be assembled and reconstructed together. Ens. d–f results from the assembly of two different papyrus ensembles, d and f, by Janko, R., ‘Empedocles, On Nature I 233–364: a new reconstruction of P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665–6’, ZPE 150 (2004), 1–26Google Scholar. Having noted ‘a vertical crack or break in each fragment after the second letter in the verse’ (at 5), Janko was able to place fr. f left below fr. d.

2 Martin, A. and Primavesi, O., L'Empédocle de Strasbourg (Strasb, P.. Gr. Inv. 1665–1666) (Strasbourg, Berlin, New York, 1999); hereafter MPGoogle Scholar.

3 Rashed, M., ‘La Zoogonie de la Haine selon Empédocle: retour sur l'ensemble d du papyrus d'Akhmim’, Phronesis 56 (2011), 33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted with minor variations in Rashed, M., La jeune fille et la sphère. Études sur Empédocle (Paris, 2018), 85–112Google Scholar. Throughout the present paper I will refer to Rashed’s 2018 edition of the papyrus.

4 Laks, A. and Most, G.W., Early Greek Philosophy: Western Greek Thinkers, part 2, vol. 5 (Cambridge, MA, 2016)Google Scholar.

5 Cf. at line 10b αὖθις ‘again’ with MP (n. 2), 147; Kingsley, P., ‘Empedocles for the new millennium’, Ancient Philosophy 22 (2002), 333–413, at 339CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 10 and Janko (n. 1), 7. Contra (αὖθις ‘later’), Sedley, D., Creationism and his Critics in Antiquity (Berkeley, 2007), 45 n. 45Google Scholar.

6 Empedocles returns to this topic after his complaint about his present situation of guilt and misfortune in the immediately preceding verses: see d–f 5–10a: └Οἴ┘μ̣οι ὅτ(ι) οὐ πρόσθεν με δι̣└ώλεσε νη┘λεὲς ἦμαρ, | └πρὶν┘ χηλαῖς̣ └σχέ┘τ̣λι᾿ ἔργα βορ̣└ᾶς πέρι μητ┘ί̣σ̣α̣└σθαι·┘| [νῦν δ]ὲ μάτη[ν ἐν] τῶιδε νότ̣[ωι κατέδ]ε̣υσα παρειάς· | [ἐξικ]ν̣ούμε[θα γὰ]ρ̣ πολυβενθ̣[έα Δῖνον], ὀ̣ΐω, | [μυρία τ(ε) οὐκ] ἐθέλουσι παρέσσε[ται ἄλγ]ε̣α θυμῶι | [ἀνθρώποις· …

7 Cf. Janko (n. 1), 7 n. 34. Primavesi, O., Empedokles Physika I: eine Rekonstruktion des zentralen Gedankengangs (Archiv für Papyrusforschung Beiheft 22) (Berlin, 2008), 78CrossRefGoogle Scholar has ἐπιβ[ήσομ]εθ’, and Mansfeld, J. and Primavesi, O., Die Vorsokratiker (Stuttgart, 2011), 392–563, at 484Google Scholar (with the correct accent). Rashed (n. 3), 92. MP (n. 2), 147 and 309–10 preferred the variant reading ἐπιβήσομεν.

8 See MP (n. 2), 312.

9 Cf. MP (n. 2), 314.

10 Cf. MP (n. 2), 316–17.

11 Cf. Janko (n. 1), 20 and MP (n. 2), 321.

12 For the restoration of the substantive ἀϋτῆι here, see MP (n. 2), 317–18.

13 Rashed (n. 3), 99 n. 43.

14 See MP (n. 2), 318.

15 Cf. MP (n. 2), 147 and 319.

16 Janko (n. 1), 9.

17 Cf. MP (n. 2), 307–8.

18 Cf. the discussion of the analogies between the papyrus verses and B 62 in Rashed (n. 3), 39–41.

19 Cf. MP (n. 2), 307–8.

20 Rashed (n. 3), 96: see my quotation of Rashed's words below.

21 190d: διατεμῶ δίχα ἕκαστον. See Rashed (n. 3), 44 with n. 36.

22 Cf. Trépanier, S., ‘From wandering limbs to limbless gods: δαίμων as substance in Empedocles’, Apeiron 47 (2014), 172–210, at 177CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 More precisely Σ in AΕΚΑZΟΜEΝ[Ο]ΙΣΙΝ corresponds to the 15.5th letter in the verse, given that in P.Strasb. d–f 2 there is space for a further I, which occupies less space than a letter of standard size.

24 See MP (n. 2), 10–11.

25 MP did not notice the stroke. For this reason, I cannot exclude the possibility that the stroke is not a sign of ink.

26 Simpl. Phys. 381.29–382.3 Diels: εἰπόντος δὲ τοῦ Ἐμπεδοκλέους ἐν τῶι δευτέρωι τῶν Φυσικῶν πρὸ τῆς τῶν ἀνδρείων καὶ γυναικείων σωμάτων διαρθρώσεως ταυτὶ τὰ ἔπη· …

27 Cf. Janko (n. 1) compellingly arguing against MP (n. 2), who collocated ens. d in the second book of Empedocles’ Physika, after B 62. In this way, MP could interpret Empedocles’ promise to come back to an argument that he has previously treated (ens. d–f10) as an internal reference to the lines of B 62. Janko's results have been accepted by Primavesi (n. 7), 2–3.

28 This seems to be the reconstruction by Primavesi (n. 7), 76.

29 See Primavesi (n. 7).

30 Janko (n. 1), 3–4.

31 According to Primavesi (n. 7), 19–21 and 68, in these lines Empedocles describes the cosmic phase of Strife's dominance during which the elements move separately and form a whirl. Cf. also Primavesi, O., ‘Empedokles’, in Flashar, H. et al. , Ueberweg. Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 1: Frühgriechische Philosophie (Basel, 2013), 667–739, at 704Google Scholar.

32 See P.Strasb. a(ii)23–9 and a(ii)30–c8. Cf. Primavesi (n. 7), 21–3, 31–2 and 69–71.

33 The topic of the generation of life forms in the world seems also to be explored in P.Strasb. ens. b with the reference to sea animals and the elementary composition of some of their body parts. Janko places ens. b directly below ens. d and demonstrates that this placing can be confirmed from papyrological evidence (see Janko [n. 1], 5–6). Thus, in the extant fragments of the Strasbourg Papyrus, there seems to be a coherent development of topics from the very formation of the world, to the origin of life in it and the formation of simple body parts from elementary compounds, whose rationale can still be observed in actual, more complex animals (such as sea animals).

34 I thank the anonymous reader for this suggestion.

35 Aet. 5.26.4 = DK 31 A 70.

36 Other sources confirm that during the initial stages of Empedocles’ world, the cosmic masses had a more confusing shape than now: see Tzetz. Exeg. Iliad. p. 42, 17 ed. Herm. = DK 31 A 66 and Plut. de esu carn. 1.2 p. 993C = DK 31 B 154.

37 De an. B 4 415b 28 = DK 31 B 70.

38 See [Plut.] Stromat. apud Eus. P.E. 1.8.10 (D. 582) = DK 31 A 30; Aet. 2.11.2 = DK 31 A 51.

39 Cf. Plut. De prim. frig. 19.4.953E = DK A 69.

40 See also the prominent role that Aristotle seems to assign to Empedoclean fire when he assumes that Empedocles argued for a clear-cut distinction between fire and the other elements in De gen. et corr. B 3.330b19 = DK 31 A 36 and Metaph. A 4.985a21 (= DK 31 A 37). Aristotle might have considered fire's moving action as a sufficient reason to argue for its consequent superiority over the other three elements. Furthermore, Aristotelian fire has a life-producing action similar to that of fire in Empedocles’ natural philosophy, for Aristotle explicitly connects heat with spontaneous generation in Mete. 379b6–8: καὶ ζῷα ἐγγίγνεται τοῖς σηπομένοις διὰ τὸ τὴν ἀποκεκριμένην θερμότητα φυσικὴν οὖσαν συνιστάναι τὰ ἐκκριθέντα. The ἀποκεκριμένην θερμότητα φυσικήν in Aristotle's passage can be compared with Empedocles’ κρινόμενον πῦρ in B 62.

41 The expression ἡ]μεῖς δὲ λόγων ἐπιβ[ησόμ]εθ᾿ αὖθις in ens. d–f 10, besides referring in general terms to the thematic context of the very first moments of the world and the origin of life in it, may also pick up, more specifically, fire's raising of mountains, rocks and cliffs at an earlier stage of the world's development.

42 Empedocles’ zoogonic stages are known to us thanks to a report by Aetius 5.19.5 (= DK 31 A 72). Ἐ. τὰς πρώτας γενέσεις τῶν ζώιων καὶ φυτῶν μηδαμῶς ὁλοκλήρους γενέσθαι, ἀσυμφυέσι δὲ τοῖς μορίοις διεζευγμένας, τὰς δὲ δευτέρας συμφυομένων τῶν μερῶν εἰδωλοφανεῖς, τὰς δὲ τρίτας τῶν ὁλοφυῶν, τὰς δὲ τετάρτας οὐκέτι ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων οἷον ἐκ γῆς καὶ ὕδατος, ἀλλὰ δι’ ἀλλήλων ἤδη, τοῖς μὲν πυκνωθείσης [τοῖς δὲ καὶ τοῖς ζώοις] τῆς τροφῆς, τοῖς δὲ καὶ τῆς εὐμορφίας τῶν γυναικῶν ἐπερεθισμὸν τοῦ σπερματικοῦ κινήματος ἐμποιησάσης. The text of Aetius’ passage reproduced here follows Diels–Kranz's edition. As we can see, whole-natured beings appear as the generation of the third zoogonic stage, while their direct descendants, men and women, correspond to the fourth and last zoogonic stage. However, the term ὁλοφυῶν in Aetius’ text is the result of an emendation by Karsten of the transmitted ἀλληλοφυῶν, an emendation that Laks and Most (n. 4), 496 reject in favour of the manuscript reading. Yet, regardless of whether we accept Karsten's emendation in Aetius’ report, we can maintain that whole-nature beings, as the direct ancestors of the current generation of men and women, belong to a much later zoogonic stage than that of trees.

43 This is a further striking similarity between trees and whole-natured beings: like trees, whole-natured beings do not show sexual distinction, but have both sexes. Cf. above, Aet. 5.26.4 = DK 31 A 70. In DK 31 B 62 Empedocles describes whole-natured beings as ‘having a share of both water and heat’ (B 62.5). Since—as O'Brien, D., Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle: A Reconstruction from the Fragments and Secondary Sources (Cambridge, 1969), 205Google Scholar has already pointed out—‘fire and water are for Empedocles the male and female element respectively’, ‘having a share of both water and heat’ is a clear hint at bisexuality.

44 Gen. an. 731a1; see also Theophr. Caus. pl. 1.7.1 = DK 31 B 79. It is worth noting that in the ancient imagery the ability to generate is strictly associated with the possibility to arrange for nourishment.

45 The pejorative characterization of the ‘mixture’ of trees as ‘woeful’ (π[ο]λυπήμ[ον]α κρᾶσιν at line 12) can be linked with Strife's power. Moreover, the movement of fire rising upwards can be connected to the movement of like to like, that is, of each of the elements to its homologous. Accordingly, fire moves upwards because it strives to reach its celestial homologous, like in B 62.6. In Metaph. 985a23–9 (= DK 31 A 37), Aristotle observes that, according to Empedocles, Strife separates the all (τὸ πᾶν; which coincides with the Sphere of elements), but unites the elements in homogeneous compounds, as Love unites heterogeneous elements into the one, but separates each bit of element from its homologous. Analogously, in Gen. et corr. 333b23–36, Aristotle argues that the movement according to nature, κατὰ φύσιν, is the movement leading each element to converge to its homologous parts (hence according to the so-called principle of like to like). This particular movement occurs thanks to Strife, whereas Love unites different elements into heterogeneous compounds.

46 Cf. Rashed (n. 3), 95 and 102. πᾶσιν ἅμ’ ἀλλήλο]ις is restored by Janko (n. 1), 20.

47 As we have seen above, Rashed (n. 3), 96–7 and 102 reconstructed [οὐλομελῆ, τῶν ν]ῦ̣ν, accepted by Mansfeld and Primavesi (n. 7), 484. πάντι τρόπωι, τῶν ν]ῦ̣ν was suggested by Janko (n. 1), 20.

48 δένδρεα are μακρά already in Homer, e.g. in Il. 9.542: δένδρεα μακρὰ αὐτῇσιν ῥίζησι.

49 Whereas in ἐκ δ’ αἴης προρέουσι … in B 21.10 δέ has a connective function, in [ἐκ δ᾿ ἅιης τότε ζῶι]α̣ φυτάλμια τεκνώθ̣[η]σ̣αν (d–f 13) it is apodotic in a temporal protasis, as it often is in epic. For a similar construction with ὁππότ(ε) in apodosis, see e.g. Theog. 782: ὁππότ᾽ ἔρις καὶ νεῖκος ἐν ἀθανάτοισιν ὄρηται | καί ῥ᾽ ὅστις ψεύδηται Ὀλύμπια δώματ᾽ ἐχόντων, | Zεύς δε τε Ἶριν ἔπεμψε θεῶν μέγαν ὅρκον ἐνεῖκαι.

50 Cf. MP (n. 2), 147 and Janko (n. 1), 20. [δή τοτε πρῶτα ζῶι]α̣ is proposed by Rashed (n. 3), 95 and 102. [δὴ τότε πολλὰ ζῶι]α̣ is suggested by Mansfeld and Primavesi (n. 7), 484.

51 See Arist. De an. 2.4, 415b28–416a2 and Theophr. Caus. pl. 1.12.5 (= DK 31 A 70). Plut. Quaest. conu. 3.2.2 reports that, according to Empedocles, the internal heat of plants is the reason why certain kinds of plants are evergreen shrubs, thereby connecting the action of heat in plants to the growth of foliage.

52 διαφύομαι (and aorist διέφυ) is an Empedoclean verb that is often connected to Strife's action and the increase of multiplicity: e.g. DK 31 B 17.2 and 16 (δίπλ᾽ ἐρέω· τοτὲ μὲν γὰρ ἓν ηὐξήθη μόνον εἶναι | ἐκ πλεόνων, τοτὲ δ᾽ αὖ διέφυ πλέον᾽ ἐξ ἑνὸς εἶναι); B 17.10 and B 26.9 (ἠδὲ πάλιν διαφύντος ἑνὸς πλέον’ ἐκτελέθουσι). Cf. the parallel form προσέφυν in the same metric position in a line of the Orphic poem quoted in the Derveni Papyrus, specifically in col. XVI 4 (= OF 12.2 Bernabé: ἀθάνατ̣οι προσέφυν μάκαρες θεοὶ ἠδ̣ὲ θέαιναι).

53 As maintained by Primavesi (n. 7), 78; Rashed (n. 3), 44–5 and 48; Mansfeld and Primavesi (n. 7), 486.

54 For γῆς ὄγκος, see the parallel ἀέρος ὄγκος at B 100.13. Janko (n. 1), 20 proposed the following reconstruction: ὅπποτ̣[ε δή γ’ αἰθὴρ μιχθ]ε̣ὶ̣ς. Primavesi (n. 7), 78 suggested ὅπποτ̣[ε δ᾿ αἰθέρι συμμιχθ]ε̣ὶ̣ς, which Rashed (n. 3), 44 and 48 considers too long and corrects in ὅπποτ̣[ε δ’ ἀέρι συμμιχθ]ε̣ὶ̣ς, whereas in 2018 (see n. 3 above), on pages 98–99 and 102, Rashed publishes the line as follows: ὅπποτ̣[ε δ’ ἠλέκτωρ ἀρθ]ε̣ὶ̣ς τόπον ἐσχάτιο̣[ν β]ῆ: see his 2018 reconstruction above, p. 78.

55 That is, β]ῆι according to the first hand, β]ῆν according to the second hand's correction.

56 Cf. Rashed (n. 3), 44.

57 Cf. MP (n. 2), 318. δὴ τό[θ᾿ ἓκαστα διεθμήθη κλα]γ̣γῆι is reconstructed by Rashed (n. 3), 96–7 and 102, and retained by Mansfeld and Primavesi (n. 7), 486. δὴ τό[τ’ ἀνέπτοντ’ οἰωνοὶ κλα]γ̣γῆι was suggested by Janko (n. 1), 20.

58 πολλά as an attribute of the roots might describe not only the number of forms of roots grown thanks to the primordial action of fire but also their size, as in Il. 23.580 (πολλὴ χώρη); Il. 4.244 (πολέος πεδίοιο) and Hes. Op. 635 (πολὺν διὰ πόντον). In this sense, πόλλ’ εἴδη ῥιζῶν is comparable with DK 31 B 54 quoted above in the text, in which the roots are said to be μακραί.

59 MP (n. 2), 318 n. 4.

60 γαίης κευθ]μ̣ῶνα is the restoration by Janko (n. 1), 20.

61 Ἄτης? λει]μ̣ῶνα is the suggestion by MP (n. 2), but see Janko (n. 1), 7–8. Rashed (n. 3), 100–1 and 102 suggested Ὠκεανοῦ̣ λει]μ̣ῶνα λαχόντα.

62 For parallels, see Hes. Theog. 158: γαίης ἐν κευθμῶνι, Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.1290: κευθμῶνος χθονίου and in the same metric position Nonn. Paraphr. 21.79: νόστιμος ἐκ νεκύων, χθονίους κευθμῶνας ἐάσας.

63 principio genus herbarum uiridemque nitorem | terra dedit circum collis, camposque per omnis | florida fulserunt uiridanti prata colore. Cf. Rashed (n. 3), 101.

64 See Janko (n. 1), 7 and n. 34. Accordingly, Janko reconstructs χόρ̣[τους τ’ἐξεγενόντο ὅπηι εἴλ]υτο (at 20): χόρ̣[τους τ’ ἀνθεμόεντας, ὅπηι εἴλ]υτο περὶ χθών is suggested by Rashed (n. 3), 101–2. Mansfeld and Primavesi (n. 7), 486 have χόρ̣[τους τ᾿ ¯   ˘˘    ¯  ˘˘  ¯   ˘˘  εἴ]λυτο περὶ χθών. MP (n. 2), 147 and 319 go for the variant reading following the second hand.

65 Cf. [Arist.] De plant. (= Nic. Dam. 5.4 Mayer) = DK A 70.

66 Strife's working and products are always defined by terms indicating suffering and misfortune, as we have already seen, for instance, in B 62 (men and women are ‘pitiable’). In general, Empedocles contrasts Strife's hostile force forming woeful, not to say evil, things to Love's influence and her products, which are always something favourable. In B 35, for instance, Empedocles represents Love's renewed unfolding among the elements as a ‘mild rush’ that produces an increase in voluntary unions of the elements. Under Love, all things desire each other, while under Strife, everything is divided in form and separated (see B 21.7–9). Empedocles is even more explicit about Strife's negative influence and argues in B 22 that, while things under Love ‘feel mutual affection’, under Strife they ‘are most different from one another, hostile in birth and mixture and moulded forms, altogether unaccustomed in union and deeply dismal at their generations’. Accordingly, Strife is depicted with pejorative attributes in B 17.28 (Νεῖκος οὐλόμενον), B 20.4 (κακῆισι Ἐρίδεσσι) and B 115.13 (νείκεϊ μαινομένωι), while Love is Joy and Harmony, and, thanks to her, men are able to accomplish deeds of concordance (cf. e.g. B 17.24).