Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition

201 Pages·1997·46.16 MB·English

by  Peter Kingsley

Ancient Philosophy,

Mystery, and Magic

Empedocies and Pythagorean Tradition
*

PETER KINGSLEY

CLARENDON PRESS » OXFORD
Map of Sicily end southern Tay vii
Map of Expt ix

I Philosophy

hack tothe Roots 1g
sither 5
ber 4
The Riddle 36
The Sun 0

U1 Mystery

An Intruducton to Silly
The Phaede Myth: The Geography
The Phaeds Myth: The Sources
The Phaeds Myth: The Structure

10, Plato and Orpheus
The Mixing-Bovl

12, ‘Wise Men and Women

1. A History of Errors

The Magu: a7
6. From Selly to Egypt 38
The Hero 50
1S, Death on Etna om
19, Sandals of Bronze and Thighs of Gold 28)
20, Pythagoreans and Neopythagoreans ay
11, ‘Not to Teack but o Heal 85
22. Nests a8
2, ‘Conceal My Words in Your Brest 7)
24. From Empedacles tothe Sufi: “The Pythagorean
Leaver’ sm
Appendices
I. Parmenides and Babylon wo
II. Nergal anc Heracles 3a
TI, Empedocles and the Isma'tis 305

Abbreviations sor
Bibliography 403
Index aT

PREFACE
*

narrative eran tories, howe
Tecerve to be told. For the sake of the general re
(sand phrases have been either translated or &

rally been written in the form of a
ancient, which sil

adr, Greck
xolained; so

its other sient languages. Technieal matters nave a a rale
‘ieee confined to the oomnetes; the aecasional exceptions are

here # certain igaie has a wider significance

[coinotes has been simplified a lr 8 posible. Fr:
of references given in the form of initials, r sb

oF helps tc

orinciple. The syle of refernce adopted in the

thelisof abbreviations atthe endef the honk; feller details

rh cited either by the author's name zlone, 0
Ind date, willbe found inthe bibliography

This is an appropriace place to offer 1
have helped in various ways in connection with

woud like to mention in. paricvlar Sir John
bishop Norair Bogharian, Mary Boyes; Walt

Michel Chodkiewies, Stella Corbin, Jokn Creed
II Kraye, Geoffey Lloyd, Alain M

Nersessian, David Seley, Bob Sh.

iin, James Mo
ples, Anne Sheppard

ne hook, 7
Boardman,
ter Burker
Tue Deitz

Vee

im Willeock, and Fritz Zimmermann, T owe 2 special

debs to. Chat
Robin Waterfield to all the library and te
1g Institate, London; ard to Hilary O'Shea

Burnet, Stephanie Dalley, Sara Sein, and
hing stall at the

atthe Press,

my thanks go to Mastin West, far always being

re reacy to help at every stage inthe writing ofthis book
The Kimbell Ax Museurn, Texas, has given permission tc

reproduce on the cover the detail from Salvator R
‘Emerging from the Underveld (1662). For
cmments on the painting, see Lees indie Sa

osa's Pyhag
Ross's oan

r Roa

i. Picianded'A, de Rinaldis (Rome. 1990), 14
Introduction
*

‘artingpoint one man wha lived well over to shogeaed
so. that man was ealed mpedrtes
Empedodes was probably Sor around the wan of te ith
nuty a! He was ftom the Greek colony of Acaae
nem Agrigento—on the south-west cout of Sky Bet be
oars have spent much otis ime taveling, as ope would
expect ftom ‘seer of his type in the word of ik
cent Mediterranean ane Neat East® About when he et
ere, or how, we know nothing.” And yet tis same wen
se life remains such a mystery to us, was to perorm ny
ralleld role in seeding te subsequent growth oferta
us. Foner in terms of the later end for defneg
rat elds of interest or expertise, his influence mac feat
it in philosophy, thet medicine, chemitin: Hole,
cunomy,coxmoiogy, paytholoy, mess, and scare
he immensely infuentia) theon ot four cemente ie
ted in western erature by Empedodles, jus on
Introséuction

Not surprisingly, such an important figure bas evoked a
reat deal of attention and given rise toa vast itrature. The
‘main purpose ofthis bookis to demonsiratethat—in spite of al
the attention and the litrature—modern scholarship has by ne
‘means come to grips with Empedoces' teaching as a whole,
and to indicate that & fundamental revision of our ideas about
him isin order: a revision which has major implications nog
just for our understanding of Empedocles himself but also for
our undertandng of ancient piosophy—and, nded, fl

More specically, the aim of tis suudy are to show thatthe
major obstacle to a correct appreciation of Empedocles has not
been (as is usually claimed) the fmgmentary nature of the
surviing eviderce but, instead, has been 2 wrang approach; ta
clarify the reasons why. ever since the time of Avistorle inthe
fourth century xo, his teaching has been so misconeeived; and
to show where we need totum ‘ora more accurate represenis=
tion of bis work. That will involve inthe frst instance uncovers
ing evidence which is more or less contemporary. with
Empedocles and, although so far overlooked, is directly
relevant to him. In the second instance it will invelve uncover
ing exidence fora continuous chain 0 tradition: an ‘alternative
tradition of understanding and interpreting Empedocles whieh.
survived for centuries and in several important senses remained!
closer, more faithful to the authenvie Empedocies than the
mainstream philosaphical interpretations of him in the schools
of Arstoile and Plato. An inevitable consequence of bringing,
these strands of evidence hack into the picture isthe need fora
extensive broadening of our perspectives, and for a reassess
ment of many anspoken assimprions about transmission of
ideas inthe ancient wortd

impedocles used poetry to communicate his veaching, and bit
poetry—like the writings of al early ‘phlo:ophers' prior to the
Time of Soerates and Plato—only survives in he form of

fragments as quoted and preserved in the ext of later writers
This has naturally raised the issue of what aids and sources we
car postbly use ta chicidate shese fragmentary remains of
Empedacles’ teaching, ‘The iste is of crecial importance,

Introduction 3

suse it poses very basic cuestons about the framework in
‘ to situae and appreciate the writings of these
ick we ne PP

led “Presocratis)

though the fact is rarely admitted, contemporary study of
Presoeraties has reached a crisispoint. The crisis revolves

dlound twa wards: authority, and tradition. On the one band,
‘Enlightenment’ scholarship over the past wo centuries

sisiently viewed the hstary of early Gree philosophy as
fngresive evolution towards some extremely vague, but
inous'y seductive, deal of raionality; and in doing'so it
simost unquestioningly decided to embrace Arsiotle’s
assessment of Presocratic philosophy as no mare than
‘amamering attempt to say what only he, 2 last, was able to
ular with any fluency. Aristotle, and Aristotle's successor
rastus, have come to be treated as the ultimate author.

for our understanding of the Presocratiee—not only
use they are the eadies wrest provide us witk extensive
‘mation about their teachings but also because they are

‘dered ideally qualified to appreciate the aims, and the
1d shorteomings, of Presocrate philosophy, Asa result,

1 Lind of genealogy has been established the tradition of inte
ration of the Presoerates i at its purest, it mart reliable,
wre even its most infalible the eloser we retarn 10 its dual

nce in these two great authorityfigures
Tn the other hang, since the publication of Chernist's work

mn Aristode and the Presocratics. in 1935 there has be
arenes not only of the fact that Aristotle and his

ol were frequently capable of misinterpreting the Pre
tice at very fundamental level, but als af the fact that he
his followers systematically used deliberate misunder-
soding and ‘shameless misrepresentation as a. way of
ncing their predecessors. In other words, Arte and The-
seus turnout to be far from infalible guides to the inter-
tation of the Presoeraties; and the further back we move up.
‘reams of ‘ancient tradition’ the more direedly we come
4 Introduction

face to face withthe forces ef prejudice, bias, and downright i
wil.

to gloiy the subjectivity of our anciem sourees by making
not just something wort studying ints wn right, bat the On
posse abject for sady. To quote a recent write 7

tis not wores wich are of interest but interpretations..." There
ro way that one can et thaough the layer sore objotive ut
flout the meaning of the agments” .-~ Waen it comes 1 the
Prescratics,eciolars heve a jstiicaicn fr aasstng thet will
[apy ancient authority) sw inthe text was nt there

28 reading ofthat text. No auben

Swords ey quote a have grestervaldity than thet own reading

ot reading based on il

In a number of ways this ‘comerual’ approach 1 dil
Preocrates represeats te log and ulimit oncluson l
the eoane of interpretation pursued during teat Ml
hundred years: so much isporanece & tached to Ol
contezwal satemens of Aro, Theophestis, and all
reporter that evenually Empedclerot any other cl th
Provorates—fades rom the cure atoget, Yet what i
approach mists entre the ct that he comet provided bil
ancient ster eho quot fragment othe rescraticssa
the only contest innhich tote ragments cn, and us,
Understood, On the conta, soy feed also be situated i
throw historical ootet and the reason vty ths as on
been done to such a minimal exent so ars because scholar
have by andere fain) Corcat i eal and cereal
the Preoaais tog the eyes Arbol ad lace teal
As son as we tar Yo anchor the ragmens ofthe Presa
hinocally we sp being the yes of those waters an
ined, can begin to we ther epots and interpretations by
preci em at their fal alte

Swe wil ace, there area numb of tol that allow us
pert histase The is phllogy. Put ey spy, wor

change their mea nme, falter writer quotes a
om Eepedocles and. understands word. of

i jerry evidence more or Tess conterperary with En
{doctes can often allow us to tell what he himself will have

‘ty ihe word or expresion and how he expete
inderstand it will show cis thanks to, bu
seers oh the person quoting and iterpreting the
nt Maters are mae even. easer by he fact th
1 deiterately chose to wtte not in prose but inthe
times zecompanied by an aver-reliance on modernist theories
Toety anda lack of hase common sense? But ali ll he
re remains that Empedoies, ike ether Preocratc, i sll
mone toa great extent a8 “philesanher living in 2 ental
municat is dens wishin the ramework ad imitations of
he Language of his time, The phenamenon of modem scholars
ie granting them what could be described tdi

1 thon later:
Tology is by no means the aaly tool at our disposal
© is a vase amount of historical, geographical, mytho-
‘al, and religious evidence sill surviving in ane form or
fer which together establishes network of points of
‘entation that help us to understand Empedeces, his pre

s, his contemporaries, and hissiceessors ina way that
neither Assttle nor Theaphrastus was able or willing te help
lus understand them, The ground covered in this book wi
several extended glimpses of such a new perspective
mpsrs which should be enough to show how much there is
bbe learned from it not only about Empedocles himself, but
Intraduction

also about early Pythagorean tradition and about the backs
ground co Plato's myths. The perspective ir question granis
seeess fo strange sinderground word in which what from the
surface appearea separate and jsolsted phenomens prove ta be
profoundly. linked, where what has been assumed to. be
random and arbitrary turns out to be just a part of a much
larger picture, Unsolved problems solve cach other,
unanswered cuestions answer themselves; and the claim that
insufficient evidence survives to allow us to understand aspects
‘of Empedocler’ teachings, or of early Pythagorean tradition, of
‘ofthe origins of Plato's myths, meeis wits tne response that the
evidence was always there but bas simply not been looked for
he right direction,

The present work is intended aa basic introduction to certain
teachings and waditions in antiquity: a laying ofthe grotnd for
future work on those teachings themselves an on their wider
afliations in the ancien: and postcassieal world. Ie fll :nta
three sections, The fist involves the sometimes laborious cask
of breaking through the strata of misundertandings that have
accumulated in over two thoussnd years: misunderstandings
‘ich, in the ease of Empedocles, have eflecively blocked any
real approach to his work by facing us to view iin the light of

later rational philosophy with is very particular concerns, The
second takes us dawn into the strange, labyrinthine under
world of mythology and mystery mertioned ealie, while he
third opens into an even stranger world of magic and 1

imationa. The seond ofthese sections shows ov urgent
be supplemented and deepened the third shows why the
tradonal ways of inerpetation need, ultimately, wo be lef
pind completely

As the stating poin for thie stay itwas obviously appropt

Xo star where Empedocls stared: with his four cement
or “oot” ax he calle them, which he evdendy lnoduced
Fight othe opening of his cosmological poem by equating each
them witha diy, and which hs own stm for ther
shows were fundamnal to his sytem, The apparel
Simple procedure of begining where Empedeclcs began, and

Introduction

in aed icon mares

«diel Empederiean schdlaship over the pat fy yet oe
Mee ie ba leacup, They sre coe

"scersies over questors which have tended to be imposed on
Enedoclean material ether than evchiing naturally out of
fa hati more, these question surn out to be rather easy
‘wer when approached calmly and w nt eve on

st aurives of Bmpedocles’ own poetry. Fer instance, there is
‘mous issue of whether or not he spoke of cosmic

‘ic in which the four elements are slternatey blended wit

leh other by the force of love and separated out from each
he force of hate or strife, The issue is only periphera
the ground covered in this book, ard in no way alles the

sions drawn, However itis worth neting shat the line
ted for reasons oftheir own by cercain Neoplaten
ntiguity, of denying tat he subjecred the universe to an
\ernating cyele of unifestion and sepa
he simplest and most fundamental Tevel by Er
n words. The rules of Greek language and grammar do
en allow us to judge whether an ancient interpretation of
Empedacles or am ancient interpretation of him revived in
Then tere is the question whether we have fragrnents fo
ine poem by Empedecles, or fiom wo! one of them
ological, addressed to bie disciple Pausani
the Furfcatins focusing on the theme of polution and
‘addressed to a wider public in his hore town o
Acragas. Once again, the issue in na way allects the eonelue
Sons drawn in the main body of this book; and if snyane
chooses 10 reinterpret che few references 10 iwo poets of
Empedoles as references to diferent part of one aad the same
poem, he ar shes ree todos, However, it will beeome clear in
{ue course (Ch. 231 jus why we are hound te conclude on the
basis ofthe fragments of Empedocles’ own poriry that what we
ave are the remains of two separate poems. Here itis worth
adding that to have been able to assume we only have the
rrrains of one poem: would in a sense have made my task
rauich easier: in agreement with thase who would Uke 19
abolish any distinction berween Empedocles’ poems, one ofthe
main eonclisions ofthis book will be that the insistence during
the past century and more on segregating Er:pedacles'‘philes
saphieal’ of ‘cient’ interests from his celigious or mythor
untenable, We need now to azpaech him, and bie peers,

The question of modern attinudes to scence and philosophy
raises another iste which deserves some briel comment
hocanse t relates to 4 topie that will srop up more than once
during the course of this book. In 4g08 Clara Milerd published
her stidy Gn the Inieriretaton of Empedocs. Ir it she described.
Empedoeles’ philosophy as belonging to the ‘first oungling
fauiempts' to understand the universe: 19 a sage of ‘tentative
blundering’ in which man was ‘almost ready’—but, intel
lectual infant that he wat, still unable—to arrive atthe anda
rental distinction between mind and matter" Millerd herself
can be excused for not being aware that, already fora lew years
before the publication of her work, the siumbering giant of

antum physies had been staring te come alive, But there it
no excusing clastial scholars today for ignoring the develop
mets in scienslic theory and. practice througkott the
twentieth century, ane continuing to purmue their own epecial-

ined interests spparenily unaware ofthe fac thal many people

atthe forefront of conternporary science are no longer able to
accept that distinguishing besween mind and master reprevents

Introduction °

wthd ofthese realms appears toe moving closer and closer
‘he fest wity is incressing appeal to bold par
fc bat also the enigmatic and—dare one

Hiuthological. What is mare there are modem scientists who
ously aware of this mosement ‘back’ to che Pre

jes, ard not ashamed to admit it! In this situation it
Would be apparent that scholars concerned with understand:
and interpreting the Presocratis aze not justin charge of

cv museur pieces which can 3e played around with or locked
"a8 hstorcal cutiosties, They are entrusted with rmuch

ro and one obvious aspect of this obligation involves treat

Empedocles or early Pythagor eater respect by

‘2 more serious aitempt 'o understand them on their

ny attempt at undersarding Empedoctes or Pythagereans in
ich a way cannot possibly ignore “foreign” material just
i: happene to be preserved i a language other than
or Latin, Myths on the subject ofa single, eelenclosed
Jc word sill bound in the scholarly imagination, inspite
{the Tact that the concept of ‘Panhelleniem’, of a unvred

te, was never much more than a short-lived dream in she
inds ofa few ambitious Atherians, To keep a grip on che
aliies ofthe situation itis important, for example, to remem
wer that the famous Persian Ware of the eal fith century Be
reas much a batle aetween Greeks and Greeks as between

ks and ‘barbarians; that during these wars—as both

er—there were many individual Gresks, not to

ie colonies or states, who opted for what they con
ed greater cultural as well political and economie gain
llying themeelves with the Persians; aad finally that the
sof Scily-—ao profoundly ambiguous in their attcudes to
w Introduction

the Hellenic world, and so closely linked with other nations i
both Affiea and Asia—show up probably better than anyone
ite the absurdity of ‘the superstition thet things Gresk and
hings Laci have some special common nature by virtue of
which they ought to be kept apart from all other things!

However, inthis book the issue of links between Greek and
oriental traditions has only been touched on occasionally, and
only when immediately relevant ‘o the question at hand.
mere accumilation of evidence would distract from mare

important issues and, hesices, would be of ite value withouta

etailed discussion of principles and methodology: a subject.
demanding another book on its own. As for the transmission
fof Empedaclean or Pythagorean ideas to Egypt and the Araby
world, some of the most significant steps in this process hase
been noted where appropriate. As a result i: should be posible,
among other things, o appreciate the full significance of the
fact thatthe recently discovered papyrus evidence forthe sure
vival, study, and, ic would seem, the celigious use of Emped
les poetry—probbly dating from the late first or early second
entury and from Akhmim in southern Egypt—should have
originated precisely in Akhmnim.” Altogether, the reader will
hopefully discern the outlines of a broad pattem emerging: a
broadly cyclical pattern, with elements of Empecociean and
Pythazorean doctrine deriving from Near Eastem sources snd
in the course of the centuries, making their way back to the
East The following story is itself only a fragment of a much
large

I
PHILOSOPHY

*