Gamid Magomedov

From some of Empedocles’ poems, as well as from a number of testimonies, we know that he could have described in detail not only how the generation of living beings (their tissues and organs) takes place today, but also how their creation took place from the beginning. We may assume that, before going into the details of such an account, he settled on a more general description of the process which always leads to the formation of compounds, namely, the interaction of the two forces of Love and Strife in their struggle for dominance on the material substratum of the four primordia. The question arises: when in the cosmic cycle is the zoogonic process of Love, and when — of Strife? Is it really necessary, having recognized the existence of double zoogony, to postulate at the same time that it takes place in two different phases of the cosmic cycle? Such an interpretation presupposes the reconstruction of a cosmic cycle consisting of four completely mirror phases, in the antipodes of which, on the one hand, there is a period of complete domination of Love (Sphairos), on the other hand, a period of complete separation of the primordia (concentric and homogeneous elementary masses), and in the intermediate periods, a situation of struggle between Love and Strife. In both intermediate periods there is room for the formation of the cosmos with its zoogony. Is it necessary to postulate the existence of two cosmoses for reasons of symmetry of the whole cosmic cycle? From the considerations given by the author we can conclude that Empedocles really spoke about the double creation and double destruction of mortal things. The existence of a certain «derivative coherence» between the first and second formations on the one hand, and the third and fourth formations on the other, is an undeniable fact. If we connect these observations with the interpretation of Strasb. vv. 234– 236, from which it follows that the genesis of mortal things is twofold, one cannot but conclude that Empedocles did indeed envision the development of a double zoogony. Within the same cyclic phase there was either generation and destruction by Love, or generation and destruction by Strife. It remains only to assume that such duality is always fully realized within a single cosmos. The symmetry of the macrocosm consists of the following: on the one hand, the unifying force of separate and dissimilar particles, on the other hand, the mirror-opposite force which separates the united particles and initiates the process of ὅμοιον ὁμοίῳ. It is therefore not necessary, in order to establish perfect symmetry, to imagine that at the destruction of Sphairos the unifying force of Love gives form to the second cosmos.

Among the ancient Greek philosophers Empedocles is the one who attempted to create a complete picture of the world, taking into account the knowledge of the thinkers who preceded him. It is an entire philosophical system that explores eternal and true principles and seeks to discover the causes of the being of all things and at the same time to explain their empirical becoming. It is a theory of the cosmic cycle, an eternal alternation in which the four elements that are the roots of all things — earth, air, water and fire — interact with the opposing forces of Love and Enmity, both in macrocosmic and microcosmic perspective. Empedocles does not give preference to any of the four elements, as had been done before him, but gives each of them their proper place. He introduces acting forces, by means of which he explains the reasons for the appearance and destruction of the world, and, moreover, in his views one can see the foundations of future conceptions of an impersonal law. Because of the fragmentary nature of the poem’s text, however, it is still not easy for us to grasp Empedocles’ thought consistently. Based on his own observations and taking into account the knowledge accumulated by previous generations of scholars, the author tries to offer his own reconstruction of the cosmogonic process presented in Empedocles’ poem. The reconstruction is carried out taking into account new fragments from the Strasbourg papyrus, thanks to which we have at our disposal a rather long and coherent piece of text, which makes a significant contribution to understanding the philosopher’s thought. The emphasis of the article is on the physical exposition of the poem with the application of philological methods and the subsequent interpretation of Empedocles’ verses. The physics of unity and multiplicity within the interaction of the forces of Love and Enmity and the four roots is reconstructed. The article also considers the didactic component of the poem, showing that Empedocles does not think of himself as separate from sensual nature, and that he and his disciple Pausanias are aware of their full involvement in the universal cosmogonic process.

This article addresses one of the key textual problems in Empedocles’ legacy: the localization of fragment B 115 D-K, which contains the doctrine of guilt, exile, and the reincarnation of daimon. Challenging the attribution of this fragment to the poem “Purifications,” which has been established since Diels, the study offers a new interpretation of it in the context of “Physics.” Based on the analysis of the internal argumentation of Empedocles’ verses, it is proven that the philosopher’s self-presentation as a suffering and guilty daimon in B 115 is logically and substantively incompatible with his image as a revered immortal god in fragment B 112, which traditionally opens the “Purifications.” This comparison is a decisive argument against their belonging to the same poem. An analysis of the evidence from ancient authors (Hippolytus, Simplicius, Plutarch) shows that they do not provide clear grounds for attributing B 115, while the data from the Strasbourg papyrus confirm the presence of the theme of personal guilt and suffering in the first book of Physics. On this basis, it is proposed to consider fragment B 115 as part of an extensive prologue to Physics, where the personal experience of the philosopher-daimon serves as a starting point for the exposition of universal cosmological principles.