EIRENE

S T UDI A
GR AECA
ET
L A T I NA

LII / 2016 / I–II

PAPYROLOGICA IV
VAR IA CL ASSICA

Centre for Classical Studies

Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague
 E I R E N E . S T U DI A GR A EC A E T L AT I NA , L I I , 2016, 359–383

EMPEDOCLES’ SPHAIROS AND ITS

INTER PR ETATIONS IN ANTIQUIT Y, III:
ZOOGON Y AND PL ATO’S SY MPOSIUM 1
VOJTĚCH HLADKÝ

This article should conclude our previous work where we attempted a reconstruc-
tion of what is meant by Sphairos in the philosophy of Empedocles. Based on
his own fragments, we have concluded that the Sphairos, created at the point
of the greatest prevalence of Love, is in fact a sort of enormous organism.2 It
includes all previously created things, which are united either by literally grow-
ing together or at least by jointly forming a harmonious world where Love
guarantees a peaceful coexistence of everything it had created from the basic
elements. Moreover, the Sphairos is probably identical with the “mind … holy
and immense (φρὴν ἱερὴ καὶ ἀθέσφατος)”, mentioned by Empedocles in his
mentioned by Empedocles in his fragment B 134.3

1
This study was supported by the Czech Science Foundation, Project No. 16-06962S. The
original Czech version of this article was published as a part of HLADKÝ 2008, 413–435. I
would like to thank especially Tomáš Vítek and Filip Karfík for their invaluable comments.
Fragments and testimonia of Empedocles’ work are referenced according to their standard edi-
tion by DIELS – K RANZ 1951, 308–374 (DK 31). For the text of fragments (B), we rely mainly on
the Rosemary Wright’s edition, whose translation we also generally use. The most exhaustive
collection of Empedocles’ fragments and testimonies can be found in VÍTEK 2006a. We quote
the Strasbourg Papyrus (Pap. Strasb.) according to MARTIN – PRIMAVESI 1999 but include parallel
references to an extensive reconstruction proposed by JANKO 2004, the latest reconstruction
being PRIMAVESI 2016 and R ASHED 2011.
2
Cf. our article HLADKÝ 2006 = HLADKÝ (forthcoming). A similar interpretation of the
Sphairos has recently been proposed by SEDLEY 2016.
3
Transl. WRIGHT (modified), cf. PICOT 2012, 21–23. For a discussion about the nature of the
φρὴν ἱερή see VÍTEK 2006b, 582–583; VÍTEK 2010, 43–44; HLADKÝ (forthcoming); PICOT 2012, 2,
9–12, and K ARFÍK 2014, with further references.

359
VOJTĚCH HLADKÝ

In a previous article4 dedicated to ancient interpretations of the Sphairos

we observed that the first interpreter to identify it with an amorphous entity,
devoid of all internal differences or qualities, was most likely John Philoponus,
a late ancient commentator of Aristotle. It was, however, Aristotle’s identifica-
tion of the Sphairos with undifferentiated matter or “the One” which inspired
such an interpretation. Philoponus’ notion of the Sphairos was then adopted
by Friedrich Wilhelm Sturz, the author of the first substantial modern study on
Empedocles, published in 1805. Alongside this exegetical tradition which goes
back to Aristotle, we also examined another, Neoplatonic interpretation of the
Sphairos whose most notable proponent was Simplicius. In his view, the Sphai-
ros is basically the intelligible world of Platonic Forms (though quite surpris-
ingly not the highest Neoplatonic principle of everything, the One). Naturally,
Empedocles cannot have employed the Platonic distinction between the sensible
and intelligible world. Yet even so, the Neoplatonic identification of the Sphai-
ros with the realm of the Forms, which is a complex structure, seems to sup-
port our claim that the Sphairos was meant to refer to an enormous organism.
In a following article,5 we focused on Empedoclean influence in Plato’s dia-
logues the Timaeus and Statesman where the Sphairos is treated analogously to
our cosmos. The basic Empedoclean framework of oscillating cosmology out-
lined in the myth presented in Plato’s Statesman is supplemented by a remark-
able zoogony, which is our main subject here, so a brief presentation is useful.
As the Elean Visitor admits at the very beginning of the dialogue, in the third
of the elements on which he builds his narrative, he bases his story on a claim
that once upon the time men “were born from the earth (γηγενεῖς φύεσθαι) and
were not reproduced from each other (μὴ ἐξ ἀλλήλων γεννᾶσθαι)”.6 This was
because at the time when the world was heading towards to increased organisa-
tion, the natural development of men was reversed, so they did not grow old
but young. They were born old, with grey hair, and gradually became younger,
turned into little children, their bodies got smaller, and “they proceeded to waste
away until they simply disappeared altogether”.7 This echoes Hesiod’s description
of the last, iron generation, which lives now and will eventually end with chil-
dren being born with grey hair.8 Under the rule of Kronos, on the other hand,
men (according to the Elean Visitor) sprang from the earth, which is a process

4
HLADKÝ 2014.
5
HLADKÝ 2015.
6
PLATO, Polit. 269b, transl. ROWE , cf. 271a.
7
PLATO, Polit. 270c–271a, transl. ROWE.
8
HESIOD, Op. 180–181. Cf. ROWE 1995, 190 (n. on 270d7–9).

360
 EMPEDOCLES’ SPHAIROS AND ITS INTER PR ETATIONS IN ANTIQUIT Y, III

opposite to being buried in the earth during the phase of reverse revolution of
the cosmos.9 During the age under Kronos, the earth grew plants on its own
and there was no need to tend and cultivate it.10 At this time, people then re-
sembled plants and just like them could be “put together again from the dead
(συνιστάμενοι καὶ ἀναβιωσκόμενοι)” in the earth.11 Yet, as soon as the course
of the world and with it the course of human life reversed, living beings were
no longer born from the earth. Just like the movement of the cosmos was at
that point left to its own devices, its individual parts, too, started “to perform
the functions of begetting, birth and rearing so far as possible by themselves”.12
Men, just like other creatures, came to be born in a way that is common now,
namely “from each other (ἐξ ἀλλήλων)”, and plants, too, which they had for
nourishment, no longer grew spontaneously on their own and had to be labo-
riously tended and cared for.
Remarkable is also a cursory remark about the moment the world changed
its course:

When the time of all these things has been completed (χρόνος ἐτελεώθη) and
the hour for change had come, and in particular all the earth-born race had
been used up, each soul having rendered its sum of births, falling to the earth
as seed (σπέρματα) as many times as had been laid down for each…”13

This comment clearly indicates that the Elean Visitor works with the notion of
reincarnation of souls14 which bestow life on living creatures born in the earth.
It is very important because the idea of reincarnation was also adopted by Em-
pedocles, one of but a handful of thinkers prior to Plato in whose work this
theory is firmly attested.15

9
PLATO, Polit. 271a–c.
10
PLATO, Polit. 272a.
11
PLATO, Polit. 271b, transl. ROWE. Cf. the description of the origins of humans at the begin-
ning of the myth in PLATO, Prot. 320c–d, transl. L OMBARDO – BELL: “There once was a time when
the gods existed but mortal races did not. When the time came for their appointed genesis,
the gods moulded them inside the earth, blending together earth and fire (ἐκ γῆς καὶ πυρὸς
μείξαντες) and various compounds of earth and fi re (τῶν ὅσα πυρὶ καὶ γῇ κεράννυται). When
they were ready to bring them to light (ἄγειν αὐτὰ πρὸς φῶς ἔμελλον)…”
12
PLATO, Polit. 273e–274b, transl. Rowe.
13
PLATO, Polit. 272d–e, transl. Rowe.
14
Cf. BRISSON – PRADEAU 2003, 232, n. 135.
15
Cf. especially EMPEDOCLES, B 115; B 117; B 127; B 129; B 137; B 146; B 147; HLADKÝ 2010,
English version forthcoming.

361
VOJTĚCH HLADKÝ

Empedocles’ Zoogony

One can also find similarities between Plato’s and Empedocles’ approach to
zoogony,16 which the much later doxographer Aetius classifies as follows:

Empedocles says that

[1] the first generations (αἱ πρῶτας γενέσεις) of animals and plants were not
at all whole (ὁλοκλήρους), but were disjointed with parts not grown together
(ἀσυμφυέσι δὲ τοῖς μορίοις);
[2] and the second generations were like dream images, with the limbs growing
together (συμφυομένων τῶν μερῶν) like apparitions (εἰδωλοφανεῖς);
[3] the third were whole-natured (τῶν ὁλοφυῶν);17
[4] the fourth were no longer [produced] from homogenous things (ἐκ τῶν
ὁμοίων) like earth and water, but at this stage they were produced from each
other (δι’ ἀλλήλων) – [the cause being] the condensation of nourishment for
some, while for others the beauty of the women, which produced stimulation
of the movement of the seed, also [functioned as a cause]. The species of all
the animals were distinguished according to the character of the blends [of ele-
ments]… (A 72/1).18

We can then match this arrangement in individual generations with the follow-
ing fragments by Empedocles:

[1] (a) And earth, anchored in the perfect harbours of Kypris, / chanced to come
together with them in almost equal quantities (τούτοισι ἴση), / with Hephaestus
and rain and all-shining air, / either a little more, or less where there was more. /
From these came blood and the forms of different flesh (B 98).19

16
For an overview of the issue of zoogony in Empedocles, see most notably O’BRIEN 1969,
196–236; SEDLEY 2005; SEDLEY 2007, ch. II,2; R ASHED 2011; FERELLA 2011, 67–92. For a useful
overview of various possible readings of the cosmic cycle (which is always linked to zoogony),
see WILCOX 2001. The author of the present article opts for a single zoogony and the following
exposition shares many points with Sedley, whose works were not unfortunately known to
him when he worked on the original Czech version of this text.
17
This is Karsten’s very convincing conjecture based on οὐλοφυεῖς attested in EMPEDOCLES,
B 62,4, for hapax legomenon ἀλληλοφυῶν.
18
Transl. INWOOD (modified).
19
83 WRIGHT, 98 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT (modified). Simplicius, placing this fragment in
Empedocles’ Physics (τὰ Φυσικά), claims that Love functions here as the creative cause of the
merging of elements in higher units (τῆς ἐνταῦθα δημιουργικῆς συγκράσεως … αἰτία), SIMPLICIUS,
In Phys. 32,1–2.

362
 EMPEDOCLES’ SPHAIROS AND ITS INTER PR ETATIONS IN ANTIQUIT Y, III

(b) And the kindly earth received into its broad hollows / of the eight parts
two of the brightness of Nestis and four of Hephaestus; / and these come to
be white bones, / marvellously held together of Harmony (ἁρμονίης κόλλῃσιν
ἀρηρότα) (B 96).20

(c) Out of these the goddess Aphrodite fashioned (ἔπηξε) untiring eyes (B 86).21

Aphrodite, having fitted [them] with rivets of affection (γόμφοι … κατάστοργοι)

(B 87).22

When they first grew together (ξὺμ … ἐφύοντο) in the hands of Kypris… (B 95).23

(d) Here many heads sprang up (ἐβλάστησαν) without necks, / bare arms were
wandering (ἐπλάζοντο) without shoulders, / and eyes needing foreheads strayed
(ἐπλανᾶτο) singly (B 57).24

(e) … the limbs (τὰ γυῖα) which were still isolated (μουνομελῆ) members because
of the separation of Strife wandered about (ἐπλανᾶτο)… (B 58)25

[2] (f) This is well known in the mass (ὄγκον) of mortal limbs (βροτέων μελέων): /
at one time (ἄλλοτε), in the maturity of a vigorous life (βίου θαλέθοντος ἐν
ἀκμῇ), / all the limbs (γυῖα) that are the body’s portion (σῶμα λέλογχε) come
into one (συνερχόμεν’ εἰς ἕν) under Love; / at another time (ἄλλοτε) again, torn
asunder by evil strifes (κακῇσι διατμηθέντ’ ἐρίδεσσι), / they wander (πλάζεται),
each apart (ἄνδιχ’ ἕκαστα), on the shore of life (περὶ ρηγμῖνι βίοιο). / So it is
too for plants and for fish that live in the water, / and for wild animals who
have their lairs in the hills, and for the wing-sped gulls (B 20).26

20
48 WRIGHT, 62 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT. Simplicius places this fragment “in book one of
Physics (ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Φυσικῶν)”, SIMPLICIUS, In Phys. 300,20, transl. Inwood.
21
85 WRIGHT, 100 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT.
22
86 WRIGHT, 101 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT, cf. WRIGHT, 1995, 239–240.
23
87 WRIGHT, 102 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT.
24
50 WRIGHT, 64 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT. A RISTOTLE, De coel. 300b30, and SIMPLICIUS, In De coel.
586,10–11, 28, transl. INWOOD, place this fragment “in the [period] of Love (ἐπὶ τῆς Φιλότητος)”.
25
139 WRIGHT, CTXT–49a INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT. Simplicius places this text into the period
when Love becomes [or, alternatively, “is getting”] active and Strife still holds individual limbs
mutually separate, SIMPLICIUS, In De coel. 587,8–26.
26
26 WRIGHT, 38 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT. We have decided to place this fragment among
those which describe zoogony based on the analogous use of key expressions μέλεα in B 62,7

363
VOJTĚCH HLADKÝ

(g) But as god (δαίμων) mingled (ἐμίσγετο) further with god (δαίμονι) / they
fell together (συμπίπτεσκον) as they chanced to meet each other, / and many
others in addition to these were continually arising (B 59).27

(h) … with rolling walk (εἰλίποδ’) and with hands not properly articulated
ἀκριτόχειρα)… (B 60)28

(i) Many creatures with a face and breasts on both sides (ἀμφιπρόσωπα καὶ
ἀμφίστερνα) / were produced, man-faced bulls (βουγενῆ ἀνδρόπρῳρα) arose
(ἐξανέτελλον) / and again bull-headed men (βούκρανα), [others] with male
and female nature combined, / and the limbs they had were dark (†σκιεροῖς†
γυίοις) (B 61).29

[3] (j) And now hear this – how fire, as it was being separated (κρινόμενον πῦρ),
/ brought up (ἀνήγαγε) by night the shoots (ὅρπηκας) of men and pitiable
(πολύκλαυτῶν) women, / for the account is to the point and well informed.
First, whole-natured forms (οὐλοφυεῖς … τύποι), having a share of both water
and heat, / sprang up from the earth (χθονὸς ἐξανέτελλον); / fire, as it tended
to reach its like (πρὸς ὁμοῖον ἱκέσθαι), kept sending them up (ἀνέπεμπε), / when
they did not as yet show the lovely shape of limbs (μελέων ἐρατὸν δέμας), / or
voice or language native to man (B 62).30

[4] (k) But the nature of the limbs is separated (διέσπασται), part in [the body
of] the man (ἡ μὲν ἐν ἀνδρός) … (B 63)31

and B 63,1, and perhaps also γυῖα in somewhat less certain occurrences in B 58, B 61,4, and
B 62,8, as well as πλάζεται, which also appears in B 57,2–3 and 58, always in connection with
individual, separate limbs.
27
51 WRIGHT, 65 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT. Simplicius places this fragment immediately follow-
ing the context of B 58, also into the period when Love only just starts to gain dominance;
SIMPLICIUS, In De coel. 587,8–26, cf. n. 25.
28
140 WRIGHT, CTXT–51 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT, cf. WRIGHT 1995, 295.
29
52 WRIGHT, 66 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT (modified). Simplicius places this fragment to a period
“during the rule of Love (κατὰ τὴν τῆς Φιλίας ἀρχήν)”, SIMPLICIUS, In Phys. 371,33, transl. INWOOD.
30
53 WRIGHT, 67 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT. Simplicius places this fragment “in book two of
[Empedocles’] Physics (ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν Φυσικῶν)”, in particular, “before the articulation of
male and female bodies (πρὸ τῆς τῶν ἀνδρείων καὶ γυναικείων σωμάτων διαρθρώσεως)”, SIM-
PLICIUS, In Phys. 381,29–30, transl. INWOOD. Following A RISTOTLE (Phys. 199b7–9), upon whose
work he comments, Simplicius explains τὸ οὐλοφυές, rather unconvincingly, as sperm; cf. In
Phys. 382,4–21. See also parallel with PLATO’s Prot. 320c–d.
31
56 WRIGHT, 70 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT (modified). The fragment can be restored to this

364
 EMPEDOCLES’ SPHAIROS AND ITS INTER PR ETATIONS IN ANTIQUIT Y, III

(l) … upon him comes also, through sight, desire (πόθος) for intercourse
(ἀμμίσγων) (B 64).32

(m) They [sc. seed] were poured in pure places; some met with cold (ψῦχεος)
and became women… (B 65)33

(n) For the male was in the warmer (θερμοτέρῳ)… 34 / this is the reason why
men are dark, more powerfully built, / and hairier (B 67).35

(o) Alas, poor unhappy race of mortal creatures, / from what strifes (ἐξ ἐρίδων)
and lamentations (ἔκ τε στοναχῶν) were you born (B 124).36

In the first generation of living beings [1], separate and independent limbs are
created. According to Empedocles, they were created by Love (B 98 [a], B 96 [b],
B 95 [c]), though it is possible that it was Aristotle, in whose work these verses
were preserved, who makes this connection (B 57 [d], B 58 [e]). In his inter-
pretation, Love at this point only just started acting, while Strife still kept the
individual limbs separate.37 The individual limbs or organs, which were thus
created, consist of the four basic elements, which are said to be held together
by “rivets” of Love (B 95 [c]), united in equal quantities (B 98 [a]) or harmoni-

form quite naturally based on the context where it appears in A RISTOTLE , De gener. animal.
764b16–18, transl. INWOOD (modified): “For it is impossible for the body of the seed to be
‘torn asunder (διεσπασμένον)’, part in the female and part in the male, as Empedocles claims,
saying: [Β 63 follows].” It is also rather remarkable that Aristotle quotes this fragment again
in another place of the same treatise, where he first explains that the seed (τὸ σπέρμα) cannot
come equally from both parents since that would lead to the creation of two new living be-
ings. In his view, Empedocles also assumes (φησι) that “[the seed] is a sort of tally in the male and
female (ἐν τῷ ἄρρενι καὶ τῷ θήλει οἷον σύμβολον ἐνεῖναι), but that it does not come complete
from either (ὅλον δ’ ἀπ’ οὐδετέρου ἀπιέναι)”. This passage is followed by Empedocles’ above
quoted fragment B 63. ARISTOTLE , De gener. animal. 722b6–12, transl. INWOOD (modified).
32
54 WRIGHT, 68 INWOOD, transl. INWOOD.
33
57 WRIGHT, 71 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT.
34
In this place, the text is irredeemably damaged. Given the context in which the fragment
was preserved, Diels’s reading “womb (γαστήρ)” is much more likely than what is in the
manuscript, namely “the earth (γαίης)”. Galen speaks about the conception of an embryo in
a womb (μήτρας) and quotes Parmenides’ fragment B 17 which has a similar meaning; GALEN,
In Epid. VI 1002,8–15. Cf. WRIGHT 1995, 118, 219–220.
35
58 WRIGHT, 72 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT.
36
114 WRIGHT, 118 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT.
37
Cf. nn. 24, 25 and further nn. 19, 20.

365
VOJTĚCH HLADKÝ

ously “held together” (B 96 [b]).38 It seems rather clear that the individual organs
are born in the earth (B 96 [b]), from which they literally grow (B 57 [d]).39 In
this respect, they are like plants, while trees, according to Empedocles, were the
first living beings which appeared on earth.40 Each individual animal limb thus
created lives separately, or, in Empedocles’ words, “wanders” around the world
(B 57 [d], B 58 [e]).
During their “wanderings” [2], the limbs and organs accidentally meet and
join in higher units or organisms (B 20 [f], B 59 [g]). This evidently happens again
during the rule of Love, when the elements (literally “daimons”, that is, divine
beings) are vigorously uniting under its influence. Life and birth are at their most
intense, reaching “the maturity of vigorous life” (B 20 [f], B 59 [g]).41 This entire
genesis is probably still situated in the earth, where the individual limbs unite
and the beings thus created grow (ἐξανέτελλον) (B 61 [i], cf. also B 62 [j]). Since
the creation of higher organisms is largely accidental and nothing but chance
determines which limbs or organs unite to create a higher unit/organism (B 59
[g]), this is also the time when various more or less successful and viable creatures
(B 60 [h]) come into existence. Some resemble mythical beings or “dream im-
ages”. Alongside creatures “with a face and breasts on both sides”, we thus also
encounter a bull-headed man resembling the Minotaur of legends. The reverse
combination, a man-faced bull also appears, as well as creatures which are partly
male and partly female (B 61 [i]).
Further generations [3] should include beings which Empedocles calls
“whole-natured forms” or “forms born as a whole” (οὐλοφυεῖς τύποι). They ap-
pear only in one fragment, (B 62 [j]), and just like the creatures of the previous
generations (B 57 [d]), they are born from the earth. It is rather difficult to de-
termine how one should image them in detail. The Greek term “whole-natured
(οὐλοφυές or ὁλοφυές)” – created in a way similar to “man-natured” (ἀνδροφυές)
and “female-natured” (γυναικοφυές), which appear in another Empedocles’ frag-
ment, (B 61 [i]) – is very rare. Of authors who were at least somewhat close to
Empedocles in time, we find the term in Aristotle’s writings, where it is clearly

38
Cf. EMPEDOCLES, A 78/2–3, 6 VÍTEK . See also a passage from Timaeus where lower gods create
human bodies from the four Empedoclean elements which they link together with invisible
“rivets (γόμφοις)” that temporarily hold the elements together, PLATO, Tim. 43a.
39
Cf. EMPEDOCLES, A 72/2, see also A 72/3.
40
EMPEDOCLES, A 70/1.
41
This is further confi rmed by the contexts of Empedocles’ fragments B 59 (g) and B 61 (i),
see n. 27 and n. 29. It seems that Empedocles describes approximately this stage of the process
also in Pap. Strasb. d11–18 = 341–348 JANKO.

366
 EMPEDOCLES’ SPHAIROS AND ITS INTER PR ETATIONS IN ANTIQUIT Y, III

used in the sense of “unified” or “being a whole”.42 One possible meaning is

that these are organic wholes which, after the evolution process passed through
all of its unsuccessful attempts, turned out to be viable. Another possibility is
that these creatures are “more whole” than beings in the following generation,
where, as we shall see, men and women exist separately. Simplicius, too, who
preserves this fragment, situates it to the period “before the articulation of male
and female bodies”.43 Such a conclusion could be further supported by the fact
that the whole-natured beings are “having a share of both water (ὕδωρ) and
heat (εἶδος)” (B 62 [j]). Moreover, in this respect they are like trees, which were
according to Aetius the first living beings to grow from the earth and “because
of the symmetry of their blend they include the nature of male and female”.44
In our times, humans are sexually differentiated according to a similar princi-
ple: male embryos are formed in hot surroundings, female ones in cold ones
(B 65 [m], B 67 [n]), water (B 62 [j]) which is in Empedocles’ view cold,45 thus
forming the opposite of the naturally warm fire.46 In other words, the first men
were androgynes very similar to beings we read about in the previous fragment,
which mentions alongside the Minotaur also “creatures with a face and breasts
on both sides (ἀμφιπρόσωπα καὶ ἀμφίστερνα)” or “[others] with male and fe-
male nature combined” (B 61 [i]).47 The mention of “dark limbs (†σκιεροῖς†
γυίοις)” (B 61 [i]) meanwhile, could mean that their body parts were not clearly
distinguished, as in the case of whole-natured beings of the third generation
(B 62 [j]). One could thus wonder whether all beings of the previous, second,
generation were necessarily doomed to extinction as unsuccessful (B 60 [h]). It
would seem that some at least may have been viable and vital enough to indi-
cate another promising direction of evolutionary development (a Minotaur, for
example, was doubtless viable and perfectly able to fend for himself).
This issue is linked to the question whether fragment (B 62 [j]) ought to be
situated into the period of rule of Love or Strife. Simplicius places it “in book

42
A RISTOTLE , De part. animal. 693a24–26, transl. LENNOX: “The back and the underside of
the body, which is called the trunk in the four-footed animals, is a naturally unified location
(ὁλοφυὴς ὁ τόπος) in the birds.” Somewhat confusing seems to be an explanation offered by
Aristotle elsewhere, according to which Empedocles uses the term τὸ οὐλοφυές to refer to
sperm; see n. 31.
43
See n. 30.
44
διὰ δὲ συμμετρίας τῆς κράσεως τὸν τοῦ ἄρρενος καὶ τοῦ θήλεος περιέχειν λόγον. EMPEDOCLES,
A 70/1, see also 70/5, transl. INWOOD.
45
See EMPEDOCLES, B 20,5
46
Cf. O’BRIEN 2007, 64.
47
… μεμιγμένα τῇ μὲν ἀπ’ ἀνδρῶν / τῇ δὲ γυναικοφυῆ.

367
VOJTĚCH HLADKÝ

two of his Physics”, unlike the abovementioned fragment B 96 (b), which he

locates to the first book of the same treatise, thus presumably in the period un-
der the rule of Love.48 It is hard to determine with much certainty whether the
second book dealt with the period when Strife appeared and gained dominance,
though such a conclusion is tempting.49 In the fragment itself, one can observe
a split: our era, when “men and pitiable women” are born, was preceded by
the age of “whole-natured” creatures. Empedocles probably shifts his attention
backwards in time to the whole-natured creatures in order to better describe
the origin of current men. And since they are said to be “pitiable” and another
fragment (B 124 [o]), states that the current “unhappy” generation was born
“from strifes (ἐξ ἐρίδων)”, one could conclude that in his view, current humans
live in an era under the rule of Strife – a point on which Aristotle, after all, also
concurs.50 In the case of “whole-natured” beings, on the other hand, it may be
more fitting to place their origin in the period under the rule of Love, since
they are a natural continuation of an evolutionary process in which Love first
creates individual limbs, in phase [1], and then, in phase [2], joins them with
varying success in organic wholes. In the next stage, [3], these beings develop
into “whole-natured” creatures. Just like the individual limbs and probably also
the second generation of living beings, they, too, are born from the earth – un-
like current animals which are differentiated in two sexes. Moreover, if the cur-
rent form of humans evolved thus directly from the “whole-natured” creatures,
one could make an important assumption: since “whole-natured” creatures were
created under the influence of Love and current humans under the influence
of Strife, the world cycle must have reversed between these two periods of zoo-
gony, whereby Strife regained its share in dominance. During the immediately
preceding moment of greatest ascendancy of Love, however, the Sphairos came
into being, so the “whole-natured” beings must have somehow existed within it.
As for the animals of the fourth generation [4], we know that the first men
originated from the earth (B 62 [j]). Later on, however, one particular body
part or limb of an individual is finally situated in a male and another in a fe-
male creature (B 63 [k]). This division is evidently connected with times of an
increasing influence of Strife, which separates the two sexes (B 124 [o]). Ac-

48
Cf. n. 20 and n. 30.
49
Cf. O’BRIEN 2007, 61–62.
50
A RISTOTLE , De gener. et corr. 334a5–7, transl. INWOOD (modified): “At the same time he also
says that the cosmos is in the same condition now in [the period of] Strife as previously [in
the period of] Love.” Cf. also A RISTOTLE , De coel. 301a14–20 (= EMPEDOCLES, A 42/1) and EM-
PEDOCLES, Pap. Strasb. d8–10 = 338–340 JANKO.

368
 EMPEDOCLES’ SPHAIROS AND ITS INTER PR ETATIONS IN ANTIQUIT Y, III

cording to Empedocles, people are thus “the double race (δίδυμον φύμα)”,51
clearly in contrast with “whole-natured forms (οὐλοφυεῖς τύποι)”. Aetius also
mentions that “men now, compared to the first men, are like infants (βρέφη)”,52
which could be understood to mean that the whole-natured beings were much
larger than the currently existing humans who were created by their split during
the renewed rule of Strife. Even in our world today, however, the birth of new
creatures is kindled by Love, which brings individuals of opposite sex together
(B 64 [l], cf. Aetius’ overview above). It thus seems that in the beginning, Love
created living creatures directly from elemental embryonic masses, whereas now
it works indirectly, so that people are born “from each other (δι’ ἀλλήλων)”, as
Aetius says in his overview. Moreover, Empedocles – just like Parmenides be-
fore him53 – supplemented his account with a theory of sexual differentiation,
claiming that females are created in cold conditions, while males grow in hot
places (B 65 [m], B 67 [n]).54
Naturally, the parallel with the myth in Plato’s Statesman is of great impor-
tance, since according to the myth, during the period of god’s presence peo-

51
EMPEDOCLES, Pap. Strasb. a(ii).27 = 297 JANKO, transl. JANKO. Cf. n. 54.
52
EMPEDOCLES, A 77/1, transl. INWOOD.
53
EMPEDOCLES, B 17, 18.
54
Cf. EMPEDOCLES, A 81/1–3, 9–10. For more on Empedocles’ zoogony, see also Lucretius’
description of zoogony, the Golden Age, and origins of civilisation most likely inspired at
least in part also by Empedocles, which are found in LUCRETIUS, De rerum natura, V. At first,
earth brought forth the plants (783–792). They were followed by animals, first of all the birds
(793–815). But this process took place during the Elysian state of the world when nothing
had to care for its nourishment (816–825). Over time, earth stopped producing because the
world gradually changed (826–836). The originally spontaneous birth of animals also led
to the creation of various strange creatures, such as androgynes or incomplete and defec-
tive beings. Therefore, only the “fittest” of the animals born from the earth have survived
(837–877). Lucretius, however, rejects the notion that various mythical creatures composed of
parts of different animals could have been born at this time: he believes it to be impossible
(878–924). Meanwhile, men first lived in a manner similar to that of wild animals. They had
no civilisation or wars, and only over time they discovered important cultural and technical
skills known nowadays (925–1135). For more on this issue, including extensive references to
possible Empedoclean influences and links, see CAMPBELL 2003. One can also find an interest-
ing similarity between the Strasburg Papyrus, a(ii),26–28 = 296–298 JANKO, and LUCRETIUS’ De
rerum nat. II,1082–1083 where it is said, among other things, that people are δίδυμον φύμα /
gemina proles – most likely in contrast to whole-natured creatures (οὐλοφυεῖς τύποι). See MAR-
TIN – PRIMAVESI 1999, commentary ad loc., 230, 232, 234. Cf. also SEDLEY 2003; SEDLEY 2007,
37–38, 50, 72–74. In Timaeus, too, the first humans seem to be sexually undifferentiated and
the two sexes separate only later (Tim. 90e–91d). Just as in the abovementioned authors, in the
Timaeus it is also said (42a) that human nature is “double” (διπλῆς δὲ οὔσης τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης
φύσεως).

369
VOJTĚCH HLADKÝ

ple are born from the earth like plants (which may be why they ought to be
vegetarians).55 What we find in the Statesman, however, is the notion of a reverse
course of human life, where old men get up from their graves and grow young
until they disappear altogether. It is much more likely to be just Plato’s way of
playfully rephrasing an Empedoclean notion, especially if we take into account
that he probably takes the notion of children being born like old men with grey
hair from Hesiod. What he shares with Empedocles is the notion that after the
reversal of the course of the world and since the beginning of a new era, men
are born “from each other (ἐξ ἀλλήλων)”. This is something Plato claims and
Aetius attests (δι’ ἀλλήλων).

Plato’s S y m p o s i u m

Echoes of Empedocles’ zoogony can be most likely found in yet another Plato’s
dialogue. The “whole-natured” people are highly reminiscent of androgynes,
people of both sexes, which appear in Aristophanes’ narrative in Plato’s Sympo-
sium.56 Let us now try following possible parallels with Empedocles.57 The main
subject of Aristophanes’ speech and the entire dialogue is love (ἔρως), which,
as we know, is also one of the main cosmic principles in Empedocles’ writings,
though it is mostly referred to by a different term (φιλότης). Aristophanes is
trying to explain its power (δύναμιν) using the myth about androgynes. Long
ago (πάλαι), he says, human nature was different from ours. There existed not
two, but three kinds (γένη) of people, namely male (ἄρρεν), female (θῆλυ), and
androgynous (ἀνδρόγυνον), who were composed of the first two.58
Plato feels a need to explain the existence of these people:

Now here is why there were three kinds, and why they were as I described them:
The male kind (τὸ ἄρρεν) was originally an offspring of the Sun (τοῦ ἡλίου), the
female (τὸ θῆλυ) of the earth (τῆς γῆς), and the one that combined both genders
was an offspring of the Moon, because the Moon shares in both (ἀμφοτέρων

55
Cf. BRISSON – PRADEAU 2003, 231, n. 128.
56
PLATO, Symp. 188c–193d, cf. KOSTER 1951, 32.
57
The following analysis shares many observations with O’BRIEN 2007, cf. also O’BRIEN 2002.
Regrettably (and to his own detriment), the present author did not have this important article
at his disposal when preparing the original Czech version of this text. Cf. also O’BRIEN 1969,
227–229.
58
PLATO, Symp. 189c–e.

370
 EMPEDOCLES’ SPHAIROS AND ITS INTER PR ETATIONS IN ANTIQUIT Y, III

μετέχει). They were spherical (περιφερῆ), and so was their motion, because they
were like their parents in the sky.59

For a better understanding, one ought to remember that in Greek, the Sun is
masculine, while the Earth (and the Moon) is a feminine noun.
The likeness between Aristophanes’ creatures and celestial bodies could be
linked to the following fragments by Empedocles:

… she contemplates the bright circle (ἀγέα κύκλον) of her lord facing her (B 47).60

… a circle (κυκλοτερές) of borrowed light (ἀλλότριον φῶς) moves swiftly round

the earth (B 45).61

She dispersed his rays / to earth from the upper side, and cast on the earth
a shadow / equal to the breadth of the silvery (γλαυκώπιδος) Moon (B 42).62

It seems, meanwhile, that these in many respects innovatory astronomical no-

tions we encounter here were most likely expressed already by Parmenides,63
whose ideas inspired Empedocles in many ways. The fragments quoted above
imply, among other things, that the Moon is not the source of its own light. Its
light comes from the Sun (whom the Moon “contemplates”).64 Its light is thus
“borrowed”, which is also indicated by the fact that during the solar eclipse,
the Moon can block the Sun.65 The notion of the Moon borrowing light from
the Sun is also related to an explanation of the regular alternation of lunar
phases. This is probably what Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium has in mind

59
PLATO, Symp. 190a–b, transl. NEHAMAS – WOODRUFF.
60
37 WRIGHT, 50 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT, cf. WRIGHT 1995, 202.
61
39 WRIGHT, 52 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT.
62
41 WRIGHT, 54 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT.
63
Cf. Parmenides’ fragment B 10: “And you shall know both the nature of the aether and
all / the signs in the aether, the destructive works of the splendid Sun’s / pure torch, and
whence they came-to-be, / and you shall learn the wandering works of the round-eyed Moon,
/ and its nature, and you shall learn the wandering works of the round-eyed Moon (ἔργα τε
κύκλωπος … περίφοιτα σελήνης), / and its nature, and you shall also know the surrounding
sky, / whence it grew and how Necessity did guide and shackle it / to hold the limits of the
stars”, B 14: “Night-shiner, wandering around the earth, a borrowed light (ἀλλότριον φῶς)”,
B 15: “…[the Moon] always looking towards the rays of the Sun” (transl. GALLOP, modified).
See also KOSTER 1951, 34–35, DICKS 1970, 49–55, and GRAHAM 2013.
64
See also EMPEDOCLES, A 55, A 60/5, A 61.
65
Cf. also EMPEDOCLES, A 59.

371
VOJTĚCH HLADKÝ

when speaking about the Moon having a share in both, that is, in the Sun and
its light as well as in the Earth and its darkness, since – as the possibility of the
Sun being eclipsed by the Moon shows – the Moon stands between these two
heavenly bodies.66 But that does not exhaust all astronomical notions expressed
in Empedocles’ work. The shape of the creatures described by Aristophanes
resembles not only the celestial bodies (the Sun and the Moon) but naturally
also the Empedoclean Sphairos, which is round:

…for two branches do not spring from his back, / he has no feet, no swift
knees, no organs of reproduction, / but he was spherical (σφαῖρος) and equal
to himself <from all sides> (<πάντοθεν> ἶσος ἑαυτῷ) (B 29)67

…but he is equal <to himself> from all sides (πάντοθεν ἶσος <ἑοῖ>) and com-
pletely boundless (πάμπαν ἀπείρων), / a rounded (κυκλοτερής) Sphairos rejoic-
ing in encircling solitude (μονίῃ περιηγέι) (B 28)68

In quite a similar way, Plato describes people of these three kinds as follows:

…the overall shape (ὅλον … τὸ εἶδος) of each human being was round (στρογγύλον),
with back and sides in a circle (κύκλῳ ἔχον); they had four hands each, as many
legs as hands, and two faces, exactly alike, on a rounded neck (πρόσωπα δύ’
ἐπ’ αὐχένι κυκλοτερεῖ, ὅμοια πάντῃ). Between the two faces (ἐπ’ ἀμφοτέροις τοῖς
προσώποις), which were on opposite sides, was one head with four ears. There
were two sets of sexual organs (αἰδοῖα)…

At this time, people moved either in the same way as now or else they “spun
rapidly (περιφερόμενοι … κύκλῳ)” on their eight limbs.69
There thus seems to be a resemblance, at least on the level of expressions
used, between a description of the Sphairos and Aristophanes’ creatures. It
could point to a link between them and celestial bodies but also, and most in-
terestingly, between them and the whole of the cosmos, that is, the Sphairos,
especially if the “whole-natured” beings were indeed created like the Sphairos

66
Cf. BRISSON 2002, 77.
67
22 WRIGHT, 34 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT (modified). WRIGHT, 1995, freely joints fragments
B 28 and B 29 into one, in her ordering number 22. In fragment B 29, she claims that the last
verse is not original.
68
22 WRIGHT, 34 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT (modified).
69
PLATO, Symp. 189e–190a, transl. NEHAMAS – WOODRUFF (modified).

372
 EMPEDOCLES’ SPHAIROS AND ITS INTER PR ETATIONS IN ANTIQUIT Y, III

during the greatest dominance of Love. On the other hand, we also find here a
fundamental difference: unlike celestial bodies and unlike the Sphairos, which is
according to Empedocles devoid of all anthropomorphic features, Aristophanes’
creatures have limbs and “organs of reproduction”. We have noted that – leaving
aside Minotaur and other “dream images” – their external appearance closely
resembles beings created in the second stage of zoogony, probably towards its
end (B 61 [i]).
A striking parallel between Aristophanes’ beings and “whole-natured” crea-
tures of Empedocles is also found in their manner of procreation. The procrea-
tion of Aristophanes’ creatures was also remarkable: the “sexual organs (αἰδοῖα)”
on their round bodies were “outside (ἐκτός) … and they cast seed and made
children, not in one another (εἰς ἀλλήλους), but in the ground (εἰς γῆν), like
cicadas”.70 It implies that, just like Empedocles’ whole-natured creatures, these
beings, too, grow or – if we were to follow the cicada simile – hatch71 from the
ground and are not born “from each other (δι’ ἀλλήλων)”. Moreover, as we
know from the myth in Plato’s Statesman, during the period under the rule of
Kronos, people reproduced in a similar way.
Further on in his speech, Aristophanes describes the subsequent fate of these
strange creatures. Their strength led to excessive ambitions, so they dared to
challenge the gods. At first, Zeus and other gods contemplated destroying them
altogether but it would mean that there would be no one to worship them.
Therefore, Zeus in the end decided to split them in half (διατεμῶ δίχα), which
led not only to their weakening but also to doubling the number of people who
worship the gods. The beings thus created would walk on two legs but even
so, if they still were too haughty and proud, Zeus threatened to split them in
half once again, thus making them hop on just one leg. And indeed, Zeus split
people in half and Apollo turned their faces around and healed up their bellies
where the incision was made. Eventually, since the halves often desired each other
which often caused their death, Zeus moved their reproductive organs (αἰδοῖα)
to the front, whereas Apollo turned their faces to the front. This enabled the
birth of people from each other (τὴν γένεσιν ἐν ἀλλήλοις). Now Aristophanes
gets to the main gist of his speech: “Love (ἔρως) is born into every human be-
ing (ἔμφυτος ἀλλήλων τοῖς ἀνθρώποις)”, he says, it “calls back … our original
nature together (τῆς ἀρχαίας φύσεως συναγωγεύς)”, as it was before Zeus split it
in two. Its aim is “to make one of two” and thus cure the human nature. Each

70
PLATO, Symp. 191b–c, transl. NEHAMAS – WOODRUFF.
71
The comparison with cicadas is inaccurate. In fact, the insect in question is most likely
to have been some sort of grasshopper, see DOVER 1980, 117 (c1), BRISSON 2001, 200, n. 240.

373
VOJTĚCH HLADKÝ

of us is thus a symbolon, “a ‘tally’ of a man (ἀνθρώπου σύμβολον)” looking for

its opposite. Sexual orientation of humans then depends on whether the whole
creature we come from was an androgyne (male and female) or a composite of
either two female or two male parts.72 At this point it is useful to recall that in
old Greek, symbola is a term for two parts in which an object was split. Such
halves served as a proof of an agreement, because when they were reunited, they
fit perfectly together.
There exist remarkable parallels between Aristophanes’ narrative and what
we know about Empedocles. Aristotle introduces the abovementioned fragment
B 63 (k) (“But the nature of the limbs [μελέων φύσις] is separated [διέσπασται],
part [in the body of] the man [ἡ μὲν ἐν ἀνδρός]…”) by a claim that Empedocles
– in Aristotle’s view correctly – claims (φησι) that

… [the seed] is a sort of a tally in the male and female (ἐν τῷ ἄρρενι καὶ τῷ θήλει
οἷον σύμβολον ἐνεῖναι), but that it does not come complete from either (ὅλον
δ’ ἀπ’ οὐδετέρου ἀπιέναι).73

Since Aristotle quite clearly speaks about contemporary people, who represent
the fourth generation of development of living beings, it is possible that the
term or the notion of symbolon which needs to be completed by its opposite
could in some form be found already in Empedocles.74 And love (ἔρως), too,
which in Plato’s Symposium brings back together the two halves of original hu-
mans which were violently torn asunder, could well correspond to Empedocles’
Love (φιλότης), a cosmic principle of all coming into existence. Some other
elements of Aristophanes’ narrative, however, were almost certainly added by
Plato. As noted previously, Empedocles does not speak anywhere about “whole-
natured” beings composed of two halves of the same sex. Though our evidence
is rather fragmentary, it seems that Empedocles mentions only androgynes, that
is, male-females.75 On the other hand, the distinction between three kinds of
beings according to their doubled sexuality fits very well in the overall context
of Aristophanes’ speech, which praises homoerotic love. Moreover, this classifi-
cation which explains the origin of three types of love is the main point of the

72
PLATO, Symp. 190a–192a, transl. NEHAMAS – WOODRUFF.
73
A RISTOTLE , De gener. animal. 722b10–12, transl. INWOOD, cf. n. 31.
74
See O’BRIEN 1969, 227; DOVER 1980, 118 (d4); BRISSON 2001, 200, n. 242.
75
Lucretius, too, who was clearly inspired by Empedocles’ zoogony (cf. n. 54), also men-
tions only androgynes and not the other two creatures of both sexes which appear in Plato’s
Symposium (LUCRETIUS, De rerum nat. V,839), cf. CAMPBELL 2002, 111–112.

374
 EMPEDOCLES’ SPHAIROS AND ITS INTER PR ETATIONS IN ANTIQUIT Y, III

myth. It is also certain that even the description of Aristophanes’ androgynous

creatures does not correspond to Empedocles in all details. The doubled repro-
ductive organs, for example, which Aristophanes places on the outer side of the
body, seem absent in Empedocles whose “whole-natured” beings are probably
sexually undifferentiated because, being born from the earth, they have no need
of reproductive organs (B 62 [j]).76 And finally, one could also wonder whether
Aristophanes may have taken the idea of androgynous creatures from elsewhere,
for example from the Orphic tradition which includes the androgynous Zeus or
the bisexual god Phanes or Eros, born from the primordial egg.77 But Zeus and
Phanes are gods, not predecessors of the current form of humans.78 Moreover,
we know very little about Orphism in the archaic period and it is,79 after all,
possible that even Empedocles himself may have drawn inspiration from it and
interpreted it in his own way.

The Cycle of Life and of the Cosmos

Let us now turn out attention back to other probable parallels between Empe-
docles and Aristophanes’ myth from Plato’s Symposium. It seems that in Empe-
docles’ writings, the originally idyllic life of men during the greatest dominance
of Love ended with some sort of disaster, during which the Sphairos fell apart
and Strife regained dominance. This was probably connected with the fact that
men, who had once lived in harmony with other beings, started to kill and eat
living creatures – something which Empedocles repeatedly warns against. People
then became “exiles” and were doomed to repeated reincarnations because they
sided with Strife.80 This “fall of the mankind” could correspond to the haughti-
ness of Aristophanes’ creatures who, as we saw earlier, challenged the gods. This
was why Zeus “split them in half (διατέμνειν δίχα)”. Similar expressions appear
also in Empedocles’ fragments quoted above, e.g., “[human limbs are] torn
asunder by evil strifes (κακῇσι διατμηθέντ’ ἐρίδεσσι) / they wander (πλάζεται

76
Cf. also O’BRIEN 1969, 227–228.
77
OF 21a,3, 76–81 K ERN = 31,4, 130–136 BERNABÉ , cf. BRISSON 1985, 392–393, BRISSON 2002,
85–101, BRISSON 2005, 846. Orphism could possibly also influence Aristophanes’ play The
Birds: we find there a comical cosmogony in which the key role is assigned to eggs and Eros
(690–702 = OF 1 K ERN = 64 BERNABÉ), see BRISSON 2005, 86–87.
78
Cf. KOSTER 1951, 32–33.
79
For a radical deconstruction of current scholarly conceptions of ancient Orphism, see
EDMONDS 2013.
80
EMPEDOCLES, B 30–31; B 115; B 128; B 130; B 137; B 139; see WRIGHT 1995, 63–69.

375
VOJTĚCH HLADKÝ

ἄνδιχ’), each apart (ἕκαστα), on the shore of life (περὶ ρηγμῖνι βίοιο)” (B 20 [f])
or “But the nature of the limbs (μελέων φύσις) is separated (διέσπασται), part
[in the body of] the man (ἡ μὲν ἐν ἀνδρός)…” (B 63 [k]).81 We were also told
that the current generation of people was born “from … strifes (ἐξ ἐρίδων) and
lamentations (ἔκ τε στοναχῶν)” (B 124 [o]), which implies that it was Strife
and its increasing power which violently split the original whole-natured be-
ings created during the rule of Love, thus creating the two distinct sexes known
to us.
The first fragment quoted here, (B 20 [f]), strictly speaking does not men-
tion the splitting of whole-natured beings in two sexes. It describes the joining
of human limbs created during the rule of Love (the first generation of living
beings [1]) in functioning human bodies ([2], eventually [3]) and their subse-
quent decomposition in individual limbs. We may be dealing here with another
phase of zoogony which is not mentioned by Aetius in his general overview,
since that ends with the appearance of people in their current form, thus omit-
ting anything that is yet to come. The current generation of people [4], itself
a result of the influence of Strife which split the whole-natured beings in two
distinct sexes [3], will, due to the increasing power of Strife, again fall apart in
individual limbs [5]. These limbs would then “wonder, each apart”, just like the
organs formed in the first stage of zoogony [1]. The beginning and the end of
zoogony are thus in perfect symmetry except that at the end, Love, which would
recompose the limbs in higher organisms, is absent. The separate limbs remain-
ing at the end of Empedocles’ zoogony thus find themselves “on the shore of
life (περὶ ρηγμῖνι βίοιο)” (B 20 [f]).82 This might correspond to Aristophanes’
somewhat bizarre remark that if people who were created by a division of the
original androgynous beings – which is why they now walk on two instead of
four legs – persist in their pride, Zeus will split them again and condemn them
to hopping on just one leg.83
Extant fragments by Empedocles suggest that the formation of the currently
existing form of men is a part of a vast cosmic drama. We know that the cur-
rent form of the world came into being when Strife’s influence disintegrated
the Sphairos, where there were no elementary masses in which either element

81
Also EMPEDOCLES, Pap. Strasb. d14 = 344 JANKO, transl. JANKO, speaks of remnants or “re-
mains” of originally created creatures which still persist: τῶν καὶ ν]ῦ ̣ν ἔτι λείψανα δέρκεται
Ἠώς. It might indicate that they were created by a separation from original beings.
82
See also EMPEDOCLES, Pap. Strasb. d1–4 = 331–334 JANKO, immediately following fragment
B 20 [f] (c2–7, 302–308 JANKO).
83
Cf. O’BRIEN 1969, 228–229; O’BRIEN 1997, 388–390; O’BRIEN 2007, 72–75.

376
 EMPEDOCLES’ SPHAIROS AND ITS INTER PR ETATIONS IN ANTIQUIT Y, III

was predominant. Instead, in the Sphairos everything was perfectly mixed in

one:

There the swift limbs (γυῖα) of the Sun are not distinguished…
…
in this way it is held fast in the close covering of harmony, a rounded (κυκλοτερής)
Sphairos, rejoicing in encircling solitude (μονίῃ περιηγέι) (B 27)84

Without delving into difficult details of Empedocles’ cosmogony, especially

the radical transformation of the world at the moment of the renewed agen-
cy of Strife, we may conclude that the individual elements previously united
in the Sphairos at that point started separating and created the world as it is
now. The sky was formed from the air and fire, which also forms the celestial
bodies.85 Our world thus consists of elementary masses in which one of the
elements predominates. This may help explain Aetius’ strange remarks accord-
ing to which Empedocles’ cosmos (κόσμος) is not identical with “the all (τὸ
πᾶν)” or universe, since the latter also contains inert matter (ἀργὴ ὕλη).86 The
cosmos (κόσμος) has actually more width than height, which results in an egg-
like shape.87 Also noteworthy is another remark by Aetius, according to which
tress, which were the first beings and had equal share of the male and female
element, grew from the earth

… before the Sun was unfolded around it and before night and day were sepa-
rated.88

That would correspond to the time of formation of the first generations during
the dominance of Love, which culminated with the creation of the Sphairos.

84
21 WRIGHT, 33 INWOOD, transl. WRIGHT (modified).
85
EMPEDOCLES, A 30; A 49/1–2; A 53; cf. A 58/1. Cf. K INGSLEY 1994, 316–324, K INGSLEY 1995,
49–56.
86
EMPEDOCLES, A 47, cf. BOLLACK 1969, 216–217; HLADKÝ 2006, 405–406, English version
forthcoming.
87
EMPEDOCLES, A 50/1, cf. BOLLACK 1969, 257–258, O’BRIEN 1969, 173. Empedocles was sup-
posed to propose a similar theory according to the late ancient or Arab alchemist treatise
Turba philosophorum, cf. K INGSLEY 1995, 56–58, 67–68. The notion of an egg-shaped world may
be related to the embryonic egg found in the Orphics: OF 1, 70, 79, 81 K ERN = 64, 114, 116,
130, 134 BERNABÉ. See BRISSON 1985, 391–392, BRISSON 2005, 845–846.
88
…τὸν ἥλιον περιαπλωθῆναι καὶ πρὶν ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτα διακριθῆναι. EMPEDOCLES, A 70/1,
transl. INWOOD.

377
VOJTĚCH HLADKÝ

On the other hand, we know that immediately after the creation of our world
by the influence of Strife, the Sun did not have a fixed trajectory and circulated
much more slowly than nowadays – a day lasted seven months.89 Aetius attests
that according to Empedocles, “when the human race was born from the earth”,
the Sun was orbiting even more slowly, so that a day took ten months, and only
later its movements accelerated to seven months.90 We have also seen that ac-
cording to Empedocles, the last creatures to grow directly from the earth were
the whole-natured beings. Aetius’ report describing the unusually slow move-
ments of the Sun thus ought to be situated at the latest to the moment when
the earth was bringing forth the whole-natured beings but the Sun already ex-
isted in the form known today, that is, to a period of transition between an era
of Love and a period of Strife. In any case, it is apparent that the separation of
fire and creation of our world caused the downfall of the whole-natured beings,
which appear in the familiar fragment quoted above (B 62 [j]).
It seems to have been a process during which the Sphairos started exuding
fire, making it independent. Fire then caused the appearance of men and women
of distinct sexes.91 In short: in the beginning, the “whole-natured forms” grew
from the earth and had “a share of both water and heat”. At this point, the Sun
probably did not yet exist since it is said that these creatures lived “by night”.
However, as soon as fire separated from the Sphairos and created heavenly bod-
ies, the whole-natured creatures were “brought up (ἀνήγαγε)” by fire according
to the principle that like attracts like – the fire, which is according to Empe-
docles hidden under the earth92 was trying to unite with the sky. At the same
time, this process forced the split of the whole-natured beings, which resulted
in their current (human) form, including the sexual dimorphism. The fragment
quoted above probably went on to describe how this happened.

Conclusion

We have seen that in some Plato’s dialogues, especially the Timaeus, Statesman,93
and Symposium, one finds various reverberations and echoes of Empedocles’

89
EMPEDOCLES, B 154, A 66/2 VÍTEK .
90
EMPEDOCLES, A 75.
91
A similar concept seems also present in the course of the reincarnation cycle found in
Plato’s Timaeus, cf. HLADKÝ 2015, 80–81, with n. 40.
92
Cf. EMPEDOCLES, B 52.
93
Cf. HLADKÝ 2015.

378
 EMPEDOCLES’ SPHAIROS AND ITS INTER PR ETATIONS IN ANTIQUIT Y, III

cosmic cycle. This could enable us to venture on a somewhat uncertain enter-

prise and, on their basis and while taking into account Empedocles’ surviving
fragments, try to reconstruct some aspects of Empedocles’ plan of the world
which remain unclear. One area in particular seems suitable for such approach,
namely the issue of origins of life or zoogony. It would be quite natural to
link it with the process of development of the cosmos and connect it with its
particular stages, in which Love and Strife take turns to dominate. If the Sphai-
ros is indeed a structure, then especially the problem of the so-called “double
zoogony”94 situated in opposite phases of world’s development disappears. To
wit, life need not be created again after Strife causes the perfect union of the
four elements to fall apart. Instead, organisms which appeared during the previ-
ous rule of Love could survive within the Sphairos. A zoogony we would thus
reconstruct would have a total of five stages revolving around the moment of
the Sphairos’ formation. Due to the influence of Love, at first separate organs
or limbs appear in the earth [1]. Subsequently, they accidentally join in higher
units, some of which survive [2]. Beings created in this way are “whole-natured”,
meaning that their sex – in contrast to androgynous creatures in Plato’s Sympo-
sium – is undifferentiated, since they are still born from the earth [3]. In other
ways, however, they resemble Plato’s androgynes quite closely. These “whole-
natured” beings survive throughout the time when all elements are united by
Love, but as soon as Strife regains dominance, they – just like the Sphairos it-
self – are split and violently separated in two sexes, a male and a female one.
At that point, zoogony passes to its next stage [4], where the key role is played
by Strife. In the following stage [5], Strife gradually decomposes humans back
in individual limbs and gradually destroys all that was created by joining under
the rule of Love.
For the issue that is our main focus – that is, the nature and form of the
Sphairos at the point of the greatest ascendancy of Love – the greatest interest
lies in that stage of zoogony when life reaches its perfection, in other words,
the “whole-natured” creatures. In their shape they seem to resemble not only
the celestial bodies (as Aristophanes claims in Plato’s Symposium) but also the
Sphairos, unlike which, however, they probably have differentiated limbs on
the outer side of their round bodies. This seems to be at least suggested by the
description of Elysian state of affairs under the rule of Love, when, as we have
seen, these creatures brought non-bloody sacrifices to Love and lived in harmony
with animals. But it also says something about the Sphairos. We have seen that
in the Sphairos, the whole-natured creatures can engage in various activities and

94
This interpretation is advocated most notably by O’BRIEN 1969, 196–236.

379
VOJTĚCH HLADKÝ

are born, spontaneously, from the earth. It implies that, though they grow from
it like plants, they are not firmly attached to the Sphairos. In other respects,
the Sphairos seems rather different from our world because everything is har-
moniously joined together (be it physically or spiritually) in it and it does not
contain any more or less independent elementary masses where one or another
element prevails. Yet, as soon as Strife starts encroaching on the Sphairos, the
elementary masses are released and go on to create the cosmos as we know it
now, with sky containing mostly fire. This also leads to the extinction of the
whole-natured beings: fire, being discharged upwards, violently splits them in
men and women – and for those, as we know, there is nothing good in the off-
ing. The golden age is over. Yet even so, humans, though created by Strife and
deeply imbued by it, can recognise the evils of their ways, support with their
actions the remnants of Love in our world, and hope that once there will once
again come a moment when this goddess takes charge. But the crucial condition
of all that is, naturally, to listen to what Empedocles tries to impart in his verses.

(Translated from Czech by Anna Pilátová.)

Bibliography

Editions

DIELS, H. – KRANZ W. (eds.) 19516, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, I–III, Berlin.
WRIGHT, M. R. (ed.) 19952, Empedocles, The Extant Fragments, Transl. and Comm.,
Indianapolis.
GALLOP, D. (ed.) 1984, Parmenides of Elea, Fragments, Introd. and Transl., Toron-
to – Buffalo – London.

Translations

ARISTOTLE, On the Parts of Animals I–IV, Transl. J. G. LENNOX, Oxford 2001.

PLATO, Protagoras, Transl. S. LOMBARDO – K. BELL, in: J. M. COOPER – D. S. HUTCH-
INSON (eds.), Plato, Complete Works, Indianapolis – Cambridge, MA 1997.
PLATO, Statesman, Transl. CH. J. ROWE, in: J. M. COOPER – D. S. HUTCHINSON
(eds.), Plato, Complete Works, 1997.
PLATO, Symposium, Transl. A. NEHAMAS – P. WOODRUFF, in: J. M. COOPER – D. S.
HUTCHINSON (eds.), Plato, Complete Works, 1997.

380
 EMPEDOCLES’ SPHAIROS AND ITS INTER PR ETATIONS IN ANTIQUIT Y, III

Secondary Literature

BRISSON, L. 1985, “Les Théogonies Orphiques et le papyrus de Derveni: notes cri-

tiques”, Revue de l’histoire de Religions, 202, pp. 389–420, re-printed in: L. BRISSON,
Orphée et l’Orphisme dans l’Antiquité gréco-romaine, Aldershot (Variorum Col-
lected Studies Series).
BRISSON, L. 20012, Platon, Le Banquet, Introd., Transl. and Comm., Paris.
BRISSON, L. 2002, Sexual Ambivalence: Androgyny and Hermaphroditism in Graeco-
Roman Antiquity, Transl. J. LLOYD, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London.
BRISSON, L. (2005), “Orphée, orphisme et littérature orphique” (s. v.), in: R. GOU-
LET (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, IV: de Labeo à Ovidius, Paris,
pp. 843–858.
BRISSON, L. – PRADEAU, J.-F. 2003, Platon, Politique, Introd., Transl. and Comm.,
Paris.
CAMPBELL, G. 2003, Lucretius on Creation and Evolution: A Commentary on De re-
rum natura Book Five, Lines 772–1104, Oxford.
DICKS, D. R. 1970, Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle, London.
DOVER, K. J. 1980, Plato, Symposium, Introd., Ed., and Comment., Cambridge.
EDMONDS, R. G. 2013, Redefining Ancient Orphism: A Study in Greek Religion,
Cambridge.
FERELLA, CH. 2011, L’ampia Natura di Empedocle, Pisa (dissertation).
GRAHAM, D. W. 2013, Science Before Socrates: Parmenides, Anaxagoras, and the New
Astronomy, Oxford.
HLADKÝ, V. 2006, “Empedokleův Sfairos [Empedocles’ Sphairos]”, Filosofický
časopis, 54, pp. 393–410.
HLADKÝ, V. 2008, “Empedokleův Sfairos v pohledech antických interpretů [Em-
pedocles’ Sphairos in the Perspectives of Ancient Interpreters]”, Listy filolo-
gické – Folia philologica, 131, pp. 379–439.
HLADKÝ, V. 2010, “Reinkarnující se duše mezi presokratiky a Platónem [Trans-
migrating Soul between the Presocratics and Plato]”, Reflexe, 38, pp. 19–34,
English version forthcoming.
HLADKÝ, V. 2014, “Empedocles’ Sphairos and Its Interpretations in Antiqui-
ty I: Aristotle and the Neoplatonists”, Eirene. Studia Graeca et Latina, 50,
pp. 149–164.
HLADKÝ, V. 2015, “Empedocles’ Sphairos and Its Interpretations in Antiquity II:
Plato’s Timaeus and Statesman”, Eirene. Studia Graeca et Latina, 51, pp. 71–98.
HLADKÝ, V. (forthcoming), “Empedocles’ Sphairos”.
JANKO, R. 2004, “Empedocles, On Nature I 233–364: A New Reconstructri-
on of P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665–6”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik,
150, pp. 1–26 = “Empedocles’ Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction”, in:

381
VOJTĚCH HLADKÝ

A. L. PIERRIS (ed.), The Empedoclean Κόσμος: Structure, Process and the Question
of Cyclicity: Proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Mycon-
ense, July 6th – July 13th, 2003, Patras, pp. 94–135.
KARFÍK, F. 2014, “L’Âme du monde: Platon, Anaxagore, Empédocle”, Études pla-
toniciennes, 11, available on-line: http://etudesplatoniciennes.revues.org/572
[accessed 10th August 2015].
KINGSLEY, P. 1994, “Empedocles’ Sun”, Classical Quarterly, 44, pp. 316–324,
KINGSLEY, P. 1995, Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythago-
rean Tradition, Oxford.
KOSTER, W. J. W. 1951, Le Mythe de Platon, de Zarathoustra et des Chaldéens: Étude
critique sur les relations intellectuelles entre le Platon et l’Orient, Leiden.
MARTIN, A. – PRIMAVESI, O. 1999, L’Empédocle de Strasbourg: P. Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665–
1666: Introduction, édition et commentaire, Strasbourg – Berlin – New York.
O’BRIEN, D. 1969, Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle, Cambridge.
O’BRIEN, D. 1997, “L’Empédocle de Platon”, Revue des études grecques, 110,
pp. 381–398.
O’BRIEN, D. 2002, “Die Aristophanes-Rede im Symposion: Der empedokleische
Hintergrund und seine philosophische Bedeutung”, in: M. JANKA –
CH. SCHÄFER (eds.), Platons als Mythologe: Neue Interpretationen zu den Mythen
in Platons Dialogen, Darmstadt, pp. 176–193.
O’BRIEN, D. 2007, “Aristophanes’ Speech in Plato’s Symposium: the Empedoclean
Background and Its Philosophical Significance”, in: A. HAVLÍČEK – M. CAJT-
HAML (eds.), Plato’s Symposium, Prague, pp. 59–85.
PICOT, J.-C. 2012, “Apollon et la φρὴν ἱερὴ καὶ ἀθέσφατος (Empédocle, fr. 134
DK)”, Anais de la filosofia clássica, 6, 11, pp. 1–31.
PRIMAVESI, O. 20162, Empedokles, Physika I: Eine Rekonstruktion des zentralen Ge-
dankengangs, Berlin.
RASHED, M. 2011, “La Zoogonie de la Haine selon Empédocle: retour sur
l’ensemble ‘d’ du papyrus d’Akhnmim”, Phronesis, 56, pp. 33–57.
ROWE, CH. J. 1995, Plato, Statesman, Introd., Transl. and Comm., Warminster.
SEDLEY, D. 2003, “Lucretius and the New Empedocles”, Leeds International Clas-
sical Studies 2, available on-line: www.leeds.ac.uk/classics/lics/2003/200304.
pdf [accessed 8th August 2016].
SEDLEY, D. 2005, “Empedocle’s Life Cycles”, in: A. L. PIERRIS (ed.), The Empedo-
clean Κόσμος: Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity, Patras, pp. 331–371.
SEDLEY, D. 2007, Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity, Berkeley – Los Angeles
– London.
SEDLEY, D. 2016, “Empedoclean Superorganisms”, Rhizomata, 4, pp. 111–125.
STURZ, F. W. 1805, Empedocles Agrigentinus, Lipsiae.
VÍTEK, T. 2001, Empedoklés [Empedocles], vol. I: Studie [Study], Prague.

382
 EMPEDOCLES’ SPHAIROS AND ITS INTER PR ETATIONS IN ANTIQUIT Y, III

VÍTEK, T. 2006a, Empedoklés [Empedocles], vol. II: Zlomky [Fragments], Prague.

VÍTEK, T. 2006b, Empedoklés [Empedocles], vol. III: Komentář [Commentary], Prague.
VÍTEK, T. 2010, “Le Sphairos d’Empédocle et son substrat mythologique”, Elen-
chos, 31, No. 1, pp. 21–49.
WILCOX, J. 2001, “‘Whole-Natured Forms’ in Empedocles’s Cosmic Cycle”, in:
A. J. PREUS (ed.), Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy, VI: Before Plato, Albany,
NY, p. 109–122.

Summary

This article presents further discussion of a problem addressed in a previous

work, namely the nature of Empedocles’ Sphairos, which is taken by us to be a
structured whole and not – as it seems to be usually interpreted – an amorphous
mixture. In the previous two articles we did not concentrate on the fragments
of Empedocles himself, but initiated a thorough study of the further reception
of the Sphairos by later ancient Greek writers (Aristotle and the Neoplatonists).
Then we turned our attention to Plato, where we can find Empedoclean ech-
oes in the Timaeus and Statesman. This time we are investigating Empedocles’
zoogony, that is, his account of the origin of life. There are strong parallels be-
tween Empedocles’ fragments and Plato’s Symposium. We have proposed a new
reconstruction of the transformations of living beings to fit better with our in-
terpretation of Sphairos and Empedocles’ cosmic cycle.

Keywords: Empedocles; Sphairos; zoogony; Plato’s Symposium

VOJTĚCH HLADKÝ
Department of Philosophy and History of Sciences
Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague
Viničná 7, 128 44 Prague 2, Czech Republic
vojtechhladky@seznam.cz

383