In the middle of the fifth century BCE, Empedocles of Acragasformulated a philosophical program in hexameter verse that pioneeredthe influential four-part theory of roots (air, water, earth, andfire) along with two active principles of Love and Strife, whichinfluenced later philosophy, medicine, mysticism, cosmology, andreligion. The philosophical system responded to Parmenides’rejection of change while embracing religious injunctions and magicalpractices. As a result, Empedocles has occupied a significant positionin the history of Presocratic philosophy as a figure moving betweenmythos andlogos, religion and science. Moderndebate arises from the lack of consensus on the number of his verseworks, their relation to one another, and the coherence of hisphilosophical system as a whole. This entry will introduce Empedocles,his life and work – traditionally referred to asOnNature and thePurifications – as well as thescholarly debates that continue to dominate study of his philosophicalsystem. It closes with the influence Empedocles had upon hissuccessors. The numbering of the fragments in this article followsthat of the Diels-Kranz edition [DK] and Laks and Most 2016;translations are from Laks and Most.

The sixth edition of Diels-Kranz’sDie Fragmente derVorsokratiker remains the gold standard for the fragments of thePresocratic philosophers. In this system of classification, eachPresocratic thinker is numbered (roughly) chronologically –Empedocles is DK 31 in the series, for example. Following this number(which we omit in cases where it is clear we are referring toEmpedocles), fragments of each philosopher are subdivided into one ofthree categories:testimonia, or witnesses to thephilosopher’s thought, constitute ‘A’ fragments; theactual words of the philosopher fall under the category of‘B’ fragments; imitations come under ‘C’fragments. After a fragment’s letter, each also receives asequential distinguishing number. For example, the first fragment ofEmpedocles referred to in this article, DK 31 A 1, signals that itarises from the Diels-Kranz edition, focuses on Empedocles, and istestimonium no. 1. In 2016, a new and updated edition of thePresocratic philosophers was published with a facing translation byAndré Laks and Glenn W. Most. It is now essential to consultthis monumental work of scholarship in addition to Diels-Kranz. Forthis reason, we also include notations from Laks and Most’sedition following Diels-Kranz. Laks and Most follow a different systemof notation for the fragments: ‘P’ (= person) fragmentsinclude those in which a philosopher’s person is discussed.These give information on a philosopher’s biography,personality, and memorable sayings. ‘D’ (= doctrine)fragments refer to all references to the doctrine of the philosopher,including their own words. Finally, ‘R’ (= reception)fragments preserve later conceptions of the philosopher’sdoctrine.

• 1. Life and Writings
• 2. On Nature
  • 2.1 Roots and Forces
  • 2.2 Cosmogony
  • 2.3 Zoogony
  • 2.4 Perception/Cognition
• 3. Purifications
  • 3.1 Transmigration
  • 3.2 Gods and daemons
• 4. Relation ofOn Nature toPurifications
• 5. Influence
• Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries

1. Life and Writings

The philosopher Empedocles was a native of the south-central Sicilianpolis of Acragas (Agrigento). Although the precise dates of hislifetime are unknown, the sources agree that he was born in the earlyfifth century BCE; according to Aristotle, he died at sixty years ofage (DK 31 A 1 = P 5b). Rich detail on the philosopher’s lifesurvives in particular through a late biography written in DiogenesLaertius’Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers,which dates to the third century CE. Unfortunately, much of this is aromantic confection, and is often derivative of the verses ofEmpedocles himself. It is likely that he was born to an aristocraticfamily; his grandfather kept horses and was remembered as a victor atthe Olympic Games. According to the fourth-century BCE sophistAlcidamas’Physics (A 1 = P 15), Empedocles was astudent of Parmenides of Elea, and later became an adherent ofAnaxagoras and Pythagoras. This intellectual apprenticeship, whilehardly possible on chronological grounds, does accurately reflect theverses’ engagement with Parmenides’ theories of coming tobe and passing away, and Empedocles’ familiarity with thePythagoreans and Anaxagoras is not unlikely. The third-century BCEbiographer of eminent philosophers, Hermippus, by contrast, held thathe was an emulator of Xenophanes (A 1 = P 14). There is anunacknowledged, but nonetheless thoroughgoing engagement withHesiod’s representation of the divine, the world-order and itsgenesis, and the place of humans in it (Most 2007, Gheerbrant 2022,Strauss Clay 2022). In Empedocles’ lifetime, Acragas underwent aseries of political transformations from tyranny to oligarchy todemocracy. The biographical tradition persistently attributesdemocratic sensibilities to Empedocles, although the value of thisevidence is contested (Horky 2016, Andolfi 2020, Santaniello 2022): heis said to have championed the people against those advancinginequality or aiming at tyranny (A1 = P 18–19). Further, he wasassociated with dismantling an oligarchy of the “Thousand”and rejecting an offer of kingship; similarly, his father apparentlyforestalled a rising tyranny (D.L. 8.72). These anecdotes may explainEmpedocles’ reputation as a talented orator in the absence ofany prose treatises. In Aristotle’sSophist, he iscredited with rhetoric’s invention (A 1 = R 5). So too,Aristotle’sOn the Poets praised his kinship with Homerin the force of his language and metaphor (A 1 = R 1b). Significantly,Gorgias was associated with him as a student (A 1 = P 24). Elsewhere,Empedocles is reported to have been a physician (A 1 = P 24) and afounder of the Sicilian school of medicine. Evidence for thisreputation is present already in the late fifth century in theHippocraticOn Ancient Medicine, which critiquesEmpedocles’ alliance of the study of nature and medicine (A 71 =R 6). Most provocatively, he is said to have brought a dead woman backto life and been worshipped as a god in his own lifetime (A 1 = P 29),narratives clearly embellished from his poetry (B 112.4 = D 4.4). Likehis contemporaries, Empedocles supposedly travelled widely, visitingThurii after its foundation in 445/4, Olympia, and elsewhere in thePeloponnese. His enemies may have taken such an absence as anopportunity to exile the philosopher (A 1 = D.L. 8.67). Reports on hisdeath are confused. We can be sure that he did not make the fiery leapinto Aetna, as was widely held in antiquity (Chitwood 1986). It ispossible, but that is all, that he died in the Peloponnese (A 1 = P29.71b–72).

Though his work has not survived intact, Empedocles enjoyed a dynamicafterlife among philosophers and their commentators, as well asphysicians and natural scientists. According to Diogenes Laertius,Empedocles composed two poems,On Nature and thePurifications. Various other works were attributed to thephilosopher in antiquity, including a hymn to Apollo, a poem on theinvasion of Xerxes, medical texts, tragedies, epigrams, and politicalessays, but there is no unambiguous evidence for these. Theinterpretation of the extant fragments fromOn Nature and thePurifications is complicated by the modern scholarly debateon whether they in fact constitute two works, as Diogenes Laertiusalleged, or a single philosophical project, as some recent scholarshave argued (Osborne 1987, Inwood 2001, Trépanier 2004, Janko2005). The latter, heterodox position has been fueled further by therecent publication of the first or second-century CE Strasbourgpapyrus (Martin and Primavesi 1999, Primavesi 2008), which contains aportion ofOn Nature with lines that had traditionally beenassigned to thePurifications. This find unsettles the notionof a physical doctrine separate from a religious one, showing that ifthere are two works, these were much more closely thematically relatedthan was previously understood. Nevertheless, as the topics of the twoparts (if they did belong to a single poem) are sufficiently distinct,we treat them separately here. The first primarily concerns theformation, structure, and history of the physical world as a whole,and the formation of the animals and plants within it; the secondconcerns morality and purification. For convenience, this article usesthe traditional names for the two collections of fragments.

2. On Nature

On Nature is a bold and ambitious work. It is addressedvariously to the Muse, Calliope; Empedocles’ disciple,Pausanias; and perhaps also to the wider community of Acragas (Obbink1993). The poem’s authority stems from its appeal to the divinefor inspiration. Empedocles’ Muse does not, however, forestallthe labor that the addressee must invest in being cognitivelyreceptive to the message of the work (B3 = D44; B 4 = D 47). As intraditional didactic verse, Empedocles cultivates a“master-pupil” relationship and promises Pausanias amortal intelligence to soar beyond all others (B 2 = D 42).OnNature contains an ontology of matter and a cosmogony motivatedby the aggregation and separation of Empedocles’ four basicelements through the power of Love and Strife. Following this, thepoem passes to zoogony and biology, as well as reflections oncognition and perception.

2.1 Roots and Forces

On Nature is based on the claim that everything is composedof four roots; these are moved by two opposing forces, Love andStrife.

• Hear first of all the four roots of all things:
• Zeus the gleaming, Hera who gives life, Aidoneus,
• And Nêstis, who moistens with her tears the mortal fountain.(B6 = D 57)

Since the roots are identified by the names of deities—and notby the traditional names for the elements fire, earth, air, andwater—there are rival interpretations of which deity is to beidentified with which root (Picot 2022). Nevertheless, there isgeneral agreement that the passage refers to fire, earth, air (=aither, the upper, atmospheric air, rather than the air that webreathe here on earth) and water (cf. B 109 = D 207). Aristotlecredits Empedocles with being the first to distinguish clearly thesefour elements (Metaphysics. 985a31–3). However, thefact that the roots have divinities’ names indicates that eachhas an active nature and is not just inert matter (Rowett 2016). Theseroots and forces are eternal and equally balanced, although theinfluence of Love and of Strife waxes and wanes (B 6 and B17.14–20 = D 57 and D 73.245–51).

In fragment 17 of Diels-Kranz, apparently speaking of the physicalworld as a whole, Empedocles states his fundamental thesis about therelation of roots and forces:

• Twofold is what I shall say: for at one time they [i.e., theelements] grew to be only one
• Out of many, at another time again they separate to be many out ofone.
• And double is the birth of mortal things, double their death.
• For the one [i.e., birth] is both born and destroyed by the comingtogether of all things,
• While the other inversely, when they are separated, is nourishedand flies apart (?).
• And these [scil. the elements] incessantly exchange their placescontinually,
• Sometimes by Love all coming together into one,
• Sometimes again each one carried off by the hatred of Strife.
• <Thus insofar as they have learned to grow as one out ofmany,>
• And inversely, the one separating again, they end up beingmany,
• To that extent they become, and they do not have a steadfastlifetime;
• But insofar as they incessantly exchange their placescontinually,
• To that extent they always are, immobile in a circle. (B17.1–13 = D 73)

Immediately one is struck by the comprehensive symmetry of thisscheme. It seems to address coming-to-be and passing-away, birth anddeath, and it does so with an elegant balance. The four roots cometogether and blend, under the agency of Love, and they are drivenapart by Strife. At the same time, elements have an active drivetoward homogenization on the principal of affinity (Primavesi 2016).While this passage describes periods when one of the forces isdominant, it also describes a cycle. One force does not finallytriumph over the other; rather, their periods of dominance succeed oneanother in continual alternation.

Empedocles argues that these roots and forces do not pass away nor isanything added to them. They are the permanent constituents of thecyclic drama just described:

• For these are all equal and identical in age,
• But each one presides over a different honor, each one has its owncharacter,
• And by turns they dominate while the time revolves.
• And besides these, nothing at all is added nor is lacking;
• For if they perished entirely, they would no longer be.
• And this whole here, what could increase it, and coming fromwhere?
• And how could it be completely destroyed, since nothing is emptyof these?
• But these are themselves, but running the ones through theothers
• They become now this, now that, and each time are continuallysimilar. (B 17.27–35 = D 73.258–266)

We find similar terminology in Parmenides’ poem when he arguesthat the All is one and that it does not come to be:

• And was not, nor will it be at some time, since it is now,together, whole
• One, continuous. For what birth could you seek for it?
• How, from what could it have grown? (DK 28 B 8.5–7 = D8.10–12).

Of course, a notorious consequence of Parmenides’ argument isthe impossibility of plurality and of the world of change that weexperience. By contrast, Empedocles argues for a plurality ofpermanent entities, i.e., the roots and forces. By incorporatingplurality into his account, he can explain the changing world of ourexperience as the combination and disaggregation of the enduring rootsunder the influence of the enduring forces.

2.2 Cosmogony

Cosmogony is due to the interplay of the four roots and the twoforces. Each of the roots has its specific nature. Some – likefire and water – are traditionally seen as antagonistic; others– like fire and air – are seen as compatible. However,Empedocles did not think the specific natures of the roots could causethem to organize themselves into a cosmos. Hence, he introduces Loveand Strife. Love works by bringing together roots of different typesinto harmony. It does so by instilling attraction among the differenttypes of roots for one another; without Love, these roots would notnaturally cohere. While it is true that Love then pulls what issimilar apart from what is similar, it does not do so by causingrepulsion for one another in similar roots. By contrast, Strifeaggregates similar roots together by instilling repulsion amongdifferent types of roots for one another. The work of Strife is toreplace the attraction among different types of roots instilled byLove with repulsion. During the history of a cosmos, these forces arein contention, present together in waxing and waning strengths,throughout the coming to be of the cosmos and its creatures and intheir passing away.

While all commentators take the passage at B17.1–13 (=D73.233–244) as fundamental, their interpretations vary,sometimes widely. In the traditional sort of interpretation (seeGuthrie 1965, O’Brien 1969, Wright 1981) this passage speaksabout a two-part symmetrical cosmic cycle, which endlessly repeatsitself. We can trace the history of one cycle, beginning with thepoint at which all the roots are united, completely intermingled andmotionless under the total domination of Love, an image reminiscent ofParmenides’ spherical “what-is”. Then Strife entersand begins to separate the roots out, until finally all are completelyseparated into distinct, self-contained masses of fire, air, earth andwater. At this point, Love begins to unite the roots until, onceagain, they are completely intermingled and another cycle begins. Ineach half of the cycle, as the separation or unification proceeds,there is a cosmogony (generation of a cosmos or ordered world) and azoogony (generation of animals). In the first half-cycle, under theincreasing influence of Strife, a cosmos and then animals come to be.In the second half, under the increasing influence of Love, again acosmos and animals come to be. We will start with the traditionalinterpretations which hold that there are double cosmogonies and thenlook at the second strain of interpretations where there is only onecosmogony.

Empedocles posits a stage in which Love is totally dominant and allthings are unified into a Sphere (B 27 and 29 = D 89 and 92). Sincethis spherical unity includes the roots, they are presumablythoroughly intermingled with one another (for an alternative view,Sedley 2016). The Sphere is the initial stage in the formation of thecosmos; it is not itself a cosmos. At this point, Strife begins toinsinuate itself into the Sphere (B 30 and 31 = D 94 and 95). Theoutcome is the separation of the roots into a cosmos (A 49 = D99a–b). The latter requires a separation of roots intoidentifiable masses of earth, air, water, and fire (B 38 = D 122),even though there might still be some (much diminished) presence ofeach root within each of the four masses. The roots of earth, water,air and fire would predominate in the respective masses, making themidentifiable as such. The mass of earth is at the center; water moreor less surrounds the earth. Air forms the next layer. From fire atthe periphery, the sun comes to be as a distinct entity. Thisgeocentric formation is what the ancients usually recognized to be ourcosmos. Since it is Strife that separates the roots, the cosmogony sodescribed is presumably dependent on Strife’s influence.

Empedocles also describes a time when Strife has separated the roots.This separation is total and is the opposite pole from the Sphere,which is a total mixture under the influence of Love.

• When Strife has reached the deepest depth
• Of the vortex, and Love has come to be in the center of thewhirl,
• Under her dominion all these [i.e., the elements] come together tobe only one,
• Each one coming from a different place, not brusquely, butwillingly (B 35.20–23 = D 75.3–6)

First of all, this somewhat mysterious description suggests that themeans by which Strife separates the roots from the beginning is avortex. Heavier elements like earth settle in the middle and lighterones like fire are pushed to the periphery. This reference to thevortex also implies that dominance by Strife is characterized by thewhirling motion of the cosmos as we know it. In addition, thisfragment suggests the end of the rule of Strife and the beginning ofthe rule of Love, as this principle begins to insinuate itself intothe elements. The latter part of this passage describes the unifyingeffect of Love.

At this point, we can start to consider the difference betweentraditional and non-traditional interpretations of Empedocles’cycle. While in traditional interpretations the separation by Strife,as described above in B 30 and 31 (= D 94 and 95), produces at first acosmos, the continuing influence of Strife gradually increases theseparation. Eventually, when Strife is totally dominant as describedin B 35 (= D 75), the roots are so thoroughly separated into theirrespective places, each constituting a mass totally on its own, withno presence in it of any portion of any of the other roots, that thecosmos and all its movements are destroyed. These interpretations thenhold that there is another cosmogony in the reverse progress fromcomplete separation to complete unity, under the influence of Love.Certainly, the symmetry of the fundamental principle might suggest asecond cosmogony. However, we do not find in the remains ofEmpedocles’ poem a description of another cosmogony, one takingplace under the influence of Love. Of course, that we do not find onedoes not mean that it did not exist, given the fragmentary nature ofthe text. In fact, Aristotle suggests in a number of places (DeCaelo II 13, 295a29;De Generatione et Corruptione II 7,334a5) that Empedocles was committed to such a second cosmogony. Buthe says Empedocles shied away from holding to such a cosmogony becauseit is not reasonable to posit a cosmos coming to be from elementsalready separated – as though cosmogony can only happen throughthe separation of elements out of a previously blended condition ofthem all (De Caelo, III 2, 301a14).

Such issues lend weight to a second strain of interpretation (seeBollack 1965–1969, Solmsen 1965, Long 1974, Wellmann 2020),which still reads the fundamental principle of B 17 (= D 73) asreferring to alternating periods of domination by Love and Strife.However, they hold that there is only one cosmogony and one zoogony.In the vortex, Strife dominates in order to separate the roots intotheir respective places, shattering Love’s Sphere.Strife’s creation of separate elements allows for theirrecombination by Love to form a cosmos. As described above, this wouldbe a condition in which some portions of each of the other rootsbecome intermingled. Love asserts her influence, forming the cosmos(consisting of a world-order with continental land-masses, oceans,rivers, winds, sun, moon, seasons, planets, stars, etc.). From themixture of roots in due proportions, there arise various forms ofanimal life. Ultimately, both animals and cosmos perish as Lovetotally reunifies the roots. Thus, finally, the Sphere is restored andthe cosmos ends. On this interpretation there is a single cosmogonygenerated by the increasing power of Love and a single zoogony underalternating dominance by Love and Strife. The idea of a singlecosmogony and zoogony is attractive, in part, because it echoes otherPresocratic philosophers.

The discovery and publication of twelfth-century Byzantine scholia onAristotle’sPhysics,On Generation andCorruption, andOn the Heavens (Rashed 2001, 2014, 2018)that preserve an elaborate cosmic time line for Love andStrife’s rule has further divided scholarly opinion. The scholiarecord an increase of Love’s power for sixty units of time; aperfect Sphere for forty units; and a rule of Strife lasting sixtyunits. Oliver Primavesi (2016) has linked this ratio to Pythagoreannumber philosophy through the structure of a double tetractys.Nonetheless, the authenticity of the scholia’s time line inrelation to Empedocles’ philosophical system remains contested(Osborne 2005, Ferella 2021).

2.3 Zoogony

So far we have concentrated primarily on the coming to be of thecosmos. However, the interplay of forces and the combination of rootsalso explains the coming to be and destruction of living things:

• But when a divinity was mixed more with a [scil. different]divinity,
• These [scil. the divine elements] would come together, accordingto how each one happened to be
• And many other things came to be born besides these, continuously.(B 59 = D 149)

Empedocles uses a striking image to illustrate how roots are mixed toproduce animals:

• As when painters color many-hued sacrificial offerings,
• Both men, by reason of their skill, very expert in their art,
• They grasp many-colored pigments in their hands,
• Then, having mixed them in harmony, the ones more, the othersless,
• Out of these they compose forms similar to all things,
• Creating trees, men, and women,
• Wild beasts and birds, water-nourished fish,
• And long-lived gods, the greatest in honors:
• In this way may your mind not succumb to the error that it is fromelsewhere [scil. than from the four elementary roots]
• That comes the source of all the innumerable mortal things whoseexistence is evident,
• But know this exactly, once you have heard the word of a god. (B23 = D 60)

Although this analogy seems to describe the way Love combinesdifferent roots, as we shall see Empedocles associated zoogony withthe influence of both forces. We can distinguish two sets of fragmentsthat tell of the way that living beings come to be. The first settells about fantastic events and creatures; the second aboutnatural-sounding events and creatures.

Let us start with the fantastic. Empedocles says that there was a timewhen separate limbs wandered around on their own:

• From it [scil. the earth] blossomed many faces without necks,
• Naked arms wandered about, bereft of shoulders,
• And eyes roamed about alone, deprived of brows. (B 57 = D157).

The wandering and straying suggest aimless and disorderly movements(and so, some influence of Strife). Then, however, these separatelimbs combined in random ways to make fantastic creatures:

• Many grew double of face and double of chest,
• Races of man-prowed cattle, while others sprang up inversely,
• Creatures of cattle-headed men, mixed here from men,
• There creatures of women fitted with shadowy genitals. (B 61 = D156)

In these fragments there is a change from separateness to combinationand cooperation (Sedley 2016). Combination and cooperation are, ofcourse, the work of Love. Whether this phase also producednon-fantastic creatures, e.g., ox-headed oxen, is not clear. Aristotleseemed to think it did, because he says some of these combinationswere fitted to survive (Physics. II 8, 198b29).

In the second set of fragments we find an explanation of the way thatpresent day creatures come to be.

• Come then: how fire, separating off, drew upward the nocturnalsaplings
• Of much-weeping men and women—
• Hear this. For my tale is not aimless nor ignorant.
• First, complete [or: rough] outlines sprang up from the earth
• Possessing a share of both, of water as of heat.
• These fire sent upward, wishing to reach what was similar toit;
• As yet they displayed neither the lovely framework of limbs
• Nor the voice and the organ that is native to men. (B 62 = D157)

This phase produces the earliest human forms, which are autochthonous,and they have yet to show entirely human features. Ultimately, fromthese there developed men and women as we know them today (B63–65 = D 164, 162, 171, 172). At this point, sexualreproduction becomes the focus of Empedocles’ account. Still,this first phase begins with separation of elements, as the firstlines of the fragment show, and so it involves some influence ofStrife.

It has been proposed that the move from discrete necks, arms, and eyesto the existing, compound bodies of humans and animals is ananticipation of a kind of evolution through natural selection (Sedley2016). That is, single-limbed organisms joined together with oneanother to produce temporary compounds that survived on the basis oftheir success in the environment, and eventually came to reproducethemselves.

In the traditional interpretations, these fragments describe twozoogonies, one under the increasingly dominant influence of Love andthe other under the dominant influence of Strife. So, the livingbeings produced by the work of Love belong to the era when Love rulesand those brought into existence by Strife belong to the era whenStrife rules. By contrast, in the second strain of interpretation,there is only one zoogony, which takes place under the increasinginfluence of Love, although Strife is still present. Thus, there arenot two zoogonies happening in distinct cosmic cycles; rather thereare fluctuations of Love and Strife within the progress from totaldomination by Strife to that by Love. This question has been affectedby a surprising discovery. In 1994, at the BibliothèqueNationale et Universitaire of Strasbourg, a papyrus was identified ascontaining extensive fragments of Empedocles’ poem; some of thismaterial was hitherto unknown to modern readers. In the wake of thisdiscovery, some scholars have argued the newly found material addedweight to the traditional reading. For instance, Trépanier(2003) argues thatensembled (see Martinand Primavesi 1999: 144–149) strengthens previous evidence for akind of zoogony taking place under the influence of Strife, which isfully distinct from the kind of zoogony under the influence of Love.In turn, distinct zoogonies imply distinct cosmogonies.

However, the double zoogony implies that animals or their parts willcome to be through a process of separation. Since zoogony underincreasing Love is shown to be a kind of assembly of parts that leadsto viable creatures, by parity of reasoning, zoogony under increasingStrife should be a sundering of wholes that leads to viable creaturesor to the sort of parts that are condemned to further disintegration.The task, then, for the traditionalists is to find in the manuscriptpassages that clearly show a sundering that produces viable creaturesor parts thereof. In turn, the sundering must clearly belong to astage in which Strife is not just dominant—after all, theiropponents recognize a fluctuation in the influence of Love andStrife—but is achieving complete separation. While thetraditionalists have presented passages from the manuscript that theyclaim to be such evidence, the claims have not gone unchallenged (seeBalaudé 2010 and Laks 2001). At this point in the continuingscholarly debate perhaps it is not too bold to say that the newmaterial presents some – not uncontested – evidence for adouble zoogony.

The question of the sequence of these stages is, perhaps, not asimportant as the fact that, on any view, Empedocles is proposing a wayof explaining living beings by competing principles of Love andStrife. While each of the four roots has its particular quality, thesequalities alone are not enough to explain how a cosmos and itscreatures come to be. Besides the interaction of fire, air, earth, andwater, there must be other forces at work in order to have the worldwe live in. Thus, the four roots, with the particular qualities, arenot so naturally antagonistic as to defy combination but are capableboth of repelling one another and of coming together. On the one hand,a lot of our world is the effect of disintegration because the rootsprove to be antagonistic due to Strife; on the other, they also cometogether by harmonizing their particular qualities due to Love. Whenharmony is a creative force, how Love achieves combination comes tothe fore. The explanation of harmonizing what could be antagonisticachieves an important depth in the idea of a proportional mixture ofroots. Empedocles says that flesh and blood are composed ofapproximately equal parts of earth, fire, water, and aither (B 98 = D190). Another proportion of elements produces bone (B 96 = D 192).Thus, a proper balance harmonizes the roots and banishes antagonism.However we read the cycles of Love and Strife, then, this harmony ofpotentially opposing roots is only a phase. In the sphere of Love, theratio that produces the variety of creatures gives way to ahomogenizing blend of roots.

These fragments seem related to ancient medicine, with its theory ofthe proper mixture of hot and cold, dry and wet as constituting thehealthy condition of the body (recall that we are told that Empedocleswas a physician as well as a philosopher and poet). However, theextant fragments do not show any detailed connection with medicalexplanations. The equal proportion in the mixture of blood does seemrelated to another kind of explanation. Blood has a central role toplay in Empedocles’ account of biological processes, to which wenow turn; among other things, it is that whereby men think (B 105 = D240). It appears that the equal mixture allows discernment of allthings (since, of course, all things are made up of the four elementsin differing proportions).

2.4 Perception/Cognition

It is not clear that Empedocles makes a distinction between perceptionand cognition. Certainly the tradition in antiquity, exemplified byAristotle, attributes to him only an account of perception, which isbased on the following:

• For it is by earth that we see earth, by water water,
• By aether divine aether, and by fire destructive fire,
• And fondness by fondness, and strife by baleful strife. (B 109 = D207)

If we take “see” (opôpamen) to mean senseperception, then this characterization suggests that such perceptionis by the likeness of external elements to internal elements. Then,since roots and principles in the perceiver are related to the rootsand principles in the perceived object, the passage suggests thatelements in one correspond to elements in the other. This passage, ofcourse, does not make clear how this correspondence results in theperception of color and shape. Still, Empedocles is able to explain,by way of “effluences” how the elements in the perceivedobject affect the elements in the perceiver. Everything gives offeffluences (B 89 = D 208). These are tiny particles that flow out fromobjects continually. One can then grasp one half of thecorrespondence; effluences from the perceived object flow to theperceiver, in particular to the perceptual organ. Then, effluences offire would make contact with the fire in the eye. On this basis, sincefire, e.g., is white, one can construct an account of the way thatfire, and the other roots, are responsible for color perception.However, these sorts of explanation do not encompass the perception ofLove and Strife, which seems to depend on deduction (B 17.21 = D73.252).

In view of such difficulties, some have argued that B 109 (= D 207)implies a more general notion than sense perception. Ifopôpamen includes understanding and knowledge (as itseems to in the case of Love and Strife), then Empedocles is nottalking about the meeting of external and internal elements. Rather,he implies a more abstract operation in which we acquire anintellectual grasp of the roots and the forces and do not justperceive them (see Kamtekar 2009). However, two recent studies thatfocus on the perception of color imply that B 109 (= D207) describessense perception (Ierodiakonou 2005 and Kalderon 2015:1–16).

Whether B 109 is about sense perception or not, in another passage (B84 = D 215) Empedocles focuses on the senses when he talks about theway the eye functions (trans. Rashed 2007):

• Just as when someone, before taking to the road, constructs a lampfor himself,
• A flame of gleaming fire in a stormy night,
• Fitting, as protection against all winds, lantern casings
• That scatter the breath of the buffeting winds,
• While the light, finer as it is, leaping through to theoutside,
• Shines on the threshold with its unimpaired beams,
• Thus, after Aphrodite had fitted the ogygian fire enclosed inmembranes with pegs of love,
• She poured round-eyed Korê in filmy veils
• These kept off the depth of water flowing round about them,
• But allowed the fire to pass through to the outside, in that it isfiner, where they had been bored through with marvellous funnels.

In the lantern, the flame is shielded by a linen screen, but the lightstill goes through the linen. So the eye has a membrane through whichthe flame within the eye goes out. This account of the eye refers toanother important Empedoclean idea: the surface of the eye haspassages through which the effluent fire goes out. Still, effluencesgo in the other direction, as well, from the objects. This possibilitysuggests another important Empedoclean idea. In a well-known passageof Plato’sMeno where Socrates is supposed to be givingEmpedocles’ theory of perception, effluences come from theobject of perception to the organ of perception. In this account thereis also a way to distinguish the different kinds of perception.Different sized effluences from the object fit similarly shapedopenings or pores in the different organs. Then colors are effluencesfrom objects fitted to the pores of the eye (A 92 = D 209). So,perception of color is based on a correspondence between the shape ofthe pores in the eye and the shape of the particles that flow from theperceived object.

Empedocles’ portrayal of the functions of the mind also seemsbased on the philosophy of affinity. Its materialist basis is clearfrom Empedocles’ contention that the blood around the heart isuniquely suited to cognition:

• Nourished in the seas of back-springing blood,
• Where above all is located what humans call thought:
• For the blood around the heart is for humans their thought. (B 105= D 240).

As in Parmenides’ account of thought as a “mixture ofmuch-wandering limbs” (B 16 = D 51), so too in Empedoclesthinking appears to result from the blended ratio (Palmer2019)—in this case, of the mixture of earth, water, air, andfire (A 86 = D 237). It has been suggested that the roughly evendistribution of the four elements in blood is what makes it so suitedto cognition (Long 1966). Though both cognition and sense perceptionoperate on the basis of affinity, their relationship to one another isless clear. According to the traditional interpretation, cognitiondoes not seem to rely upon the senses. Nor is there a single“command center” in the blood around the heart, whereeffluences from the sensory organs are relayed to. Instead, cognitionoperates as a sense in its own right. This materialist account ofcognition has lately been called into question (Curd 2016). AsEmpedocles is committed to the idea that all things have a share ofthought (B 110 = D 257), then this must include things that have noblood. For humans, pericardial blood might then serve as a commandcenter for sensory data, for evaluation and judgment.

However we interpret the process of cognition, it is clear thatthought has the potential to dramatically alter an individual’sconstitution:

• For if, leaning upon your firm organs of thought(prapides),
• With pure efforts you gaze upon them benevolently,
• They [i.e., the elements] will all be present to you throughoutyour lifetime
• And many other good things will come to you from them. For thesethings themselves
• Are what makes each thing grow in one’s character, accordingto each person’s nature.
• But if you covet different things, such as those that among menare
• Countless miseries that blunt their thoughts,
• Certainly they will abandon you quickly, as the timerevolves,
• In their desire to rejoin the race that is theirs.
• For know that all things feel (phronesis) and have theirshare of thought (noema). (B 110 = D 257)

Acceptance of Empedocles’ philosophical program is envisioned asbeing dependent upon his physicalist doctrine of the mixture ofelements. Its adoption by the addressee relies on a constitution thatis receptive to truth. Still, one remains capable of growing in wisdom(Sassi 2016). Alternatively, the disciple will increasingly becomecognitively corrupted, “blunted”. The philosopherTheophrastus reports that Empedocles attributed individualtemperaments to the more or less favorable mixture of the elementswithin blood, which was responsible for intelligent, slothful, andimpetuous individuals (B 86 = D 237).

It is likely not coincidental that the balance of elements in bloodthat is productive of thought approximates the elemental balance alsofound within the Sphere under the influence of Love. This wouldsuggest that cognition is to be associated with Love. But the failureof perfect cognition should be linked to the imperfections of themixture of the elements in blood, and this must be due to theco-presence of Strife (Long 1966).

3. Purifications

The title of Empedocles’ hexameter poem,Purifications,is not likely to be original; still, the title provides a valuableguide to its contents. Purification or cleansing(καθαρμός) could beperformed both prior to pollution (to ward it off) and after it wasincurred (to dissolve its power). Ritual and symbolic washing withwater or blood were lustral, as was abstinence from select harmfulpractices. Seers held that the purification of the body could removedisease; at the same time, Pythagoreans and Orphic mystics apparentlyunderstood purification as the emancipation of the soul from the body.Musaeus and Epimenides also hadPurifications attached totheir names. Any one or indeed all of these associations may haveattracted the title to Empedocles’ work.

Apart from the relatively rare explicit citations from thePurifications, scholars have been hard pressed to identifywhat fragments come from this work as opposed toOn Nature,and in general adhere to “ritual” themes as the decidingfactor. Additionally, the internal audience appears to be not a singleindividual as Pausanias, but the people of Acragas in general, and sosecond-person plural addresses are often taken as evidence for thePurifications. Diogenes Laertius, however, offers a securereference to the incipit of the work, in a fragment in whichEmpedocles notoriously declares his divinity and his powers ofprophecy and healing to his fellow citizens.

• Friends, you who dwell in the great city beside the yellowAcragas
• On the lofty citadel and who care for good deeds,
• Respectful harbors for strangers, inexperienced inwickedness,
• I greet you! I, who for you am an immortal god, no longermortal,
• I go among you, honored, as I am seen,
• Crowned with ribbons and with blooming garlands.
• Whenever I arrive with these in the flourishing cities,
• I am venerated by men and by women; they follow me,
• Thousands of them, asking where is the road to benefit:
• Some of them desire prophecies, others ask to hear,
• For illnesses of all kinds, a healing utterance,
• Pierced for a long time by terrible <pains>. (B 112 = D4)

This audacious beginning is intended to shock and awe, althoughEmpedocles’ subsequent redefinition of the gods and his distancefrom them somewhat tempers this initial impression (Trépanier2004). In what follows the fragments of thePurificationsdisclose an ancient decree and an “oracle of Necessity” oftransmigration for fallen daemons, “spirits”, aspunishment for their alliance with Strife through bloodshed andperjury (B 115 = D 10 and 11). After becoming polluted, the daemon issuccessively rejected by the elements and banished from the divine for30,000 seasons. Startlingly, Empedocles reveals that he too is aparticipant in this cosmic migration. Incarnation has the potential toexpiate the crime of the daemon, and by moving through a series oflives as plants, animals, and finally, humans, he returns to thebanquets of the gods. But in order to achieve this enlightened state,the daemon must adhere to a rigid ethical program, refusing meat,beans, and the bay leaf, and heterosexual sex as well. Theseinjunctions constitute a thoroughgoing indictment of traditional Greekreligion.

Transmigration is governed by the four roots under the influence ofLove and Strife, aligning thePurifications with the physicaldoctrine ofOn Nature. Here, however, the ramifications ofmatter, attraction, and repulsion are paramount for humans. Strifesets off the initial collapse of divine unity, creating the daemonswho descend into the cycle of incarnations. Their return to theworship of Love permits an eventual restoration to the divine.Empedocles gives a vivid portrayal of her peaceful worship by earlyhumans; this near Golden Age is in stark contrast to those fragmentsthat inveigh against traditional sacrifices and the eating of meat inlanguage evocative of Agamemnon’s sacrifice of Iphigenia andThyestes’ cannibal feast of his children. Worship of Love allowsfor a return to the divine. At last, the daemons arise as gods;released from exile, they enjoy a blessed life (B 146 and 147 = D 39and 40).

3.1 Transmigration

Transmigration is central to the philosophical program of thePurifications. The doctrine already had adherents in thefollowers of Orphism and among the Pythagoreans, and Empedocles nodoubt drew upon this prominent south Italian and Sicilian tradition inadvocating for his own cycle of incarnations (Kingsley 1995, Palmer2019). One part of the cycle begins under the total domination of Lovethrough the Sphere, with Strife exiled from the four roots. Afterthese have become blended, Strife “leaps” into action,becoming the motivator of the pollution by those gods who perjure asacred decree governed by Necessity. This triggers a chain reaction ofbanishment and wandering for the newly fallen daemons in a fragmenttraditionally taken as part of thePurifications(O’Brien 2001):

• There is an oracle of Necessity, an ancient decree of thegods,
• Eternal, sealed by broad oaths:
• Whenever by crimes some one [scil. of them] pollutes his limbs, bymurder
• <…> whoever commits a fault by perjuring himself onoath,
• The divinities (daimones) who have received as lot a longlife,
• Must wander thrice ten thousand seasons far from the blessedones,
• Growing during this time in the different forms of mortalbeings,
• Exchanging the painful paths of life.
• For the force of the aether chases them toward the sea,
• The sea spits them out toward earth’s surface, the earthtoward the rays
• Of the bright sun, and he [i.e., the sun] hurls them into theeddies of the aether.
• Each one receives them from another, but all hate them.
• Of them, I too am now one, an exile from the divine and awanderer,
• I who relied on insane Strife. (B 115 = D 10)

The daemon’s fate reworks a passage from Hesiod’sTheogony (775–806) that recounts the prerogatives ofthe goddess Styx, who, after strife and quarrels have emerged,punishes the gods’ perjury with an exile of nine years(Santamaría 2022). Yet, as inOn Nature, the fourroots are crucial – air, water, earth, and fire play a key rolein the cycle of incarnation, successively expelling the daemon fromtheir spheres of influence. Details on the beginning of the cycleremain frustratingly unclear. At what stage in the rising influence ofStrife the gods pollute themselves is ambiguous, as are the preciseconditions under which the gods become daemons. As in epic andtragedy, there may be “dual motivation”: Strife provokestransmigration, but the daemon remains accountable for its crimes.

Punishment arises through exile from the gods and a long wandering;the daemon is hated by all and reliant on Strife. Neither Zeus norHades will receive it (B 142 = D 12). The fate of mortals in generalis grim:

• Alas! Wretched race of mortals, miserable race!
• From such kinds of strife and from such groans you are born! (B124 = D 17)

Thepersona loquens laments, “I wept and wailed when Isaw an unaccustomed place” (B118 = D 14), and finds himself,“Far from what honor and from what abundance ofbliss”… (B 119 = D 15). Transmigration as part of theritual of purification mandates partaking in a world of suffering inwhich all life is fated to be born, become corrupt, and die. Thisreasserts the doctrine inOn Nature that all things aremortal except for the four roots and Love and Strife, which combineand break down matter. Empedocles narrates his own dissolutions andrecombination,

• For as for me, once I was already both a youth and a girl
• a bush and a bird, and a sea-leaping, voyaging fish. (B 117 = D13)

The wandering of the daemon forms a “ladder” oftransmigration, in a cycle ascending from animal to plant to human.This hierarchy of incarnation is further subdivided, with laurel atthe highest plant rung; lions at the highest animal one; and seers,poets, doctors, and leaders of men for humans (B 127, 146 = D 36, 39).Theoretically, the cycle applies to all living creatures. Thisconsideration necessitates the injunction against bloodshed andmeat-eating:

• Will you not desist from evil-sounding murder? Do you not see
• That you are devouring each other in the carelessness of yourmind? (B 136 = D 28)

Humans unaware of the cycle of transmigration commit murder by eatingflesh. The verb in Greek for “devouring”(δάπτοντες) is used ofwild animals, highlighting the dehumanizing effect of beingcarnivorous. The legal language of the gods’ oath returns in thehuman sphere, where all humans are bound by the injunction againstkilling (B 135 = D 27a). The hexameter verse form is used tospectacular effect in Empedocles’ equation of ritual animalsacrifice to human sacrifice familiar from Agamemnon’s slaughterof Iphigenia:

• The father, lifting up his own son who has changed shape,
• Cuts his throat, with a prayer—fool that he is! The othersare at a loss
• While they sacrifice the suppliant; but he [scil. the father],deaf to the shouts,
• Has cut the throat and prepared an evil meal in his house.
• In the same way, a son seizes his father and children theirmother,
• And ripping out their life they devour the flesh of their dearones. (B 137 = D 29)

The gnomic wisdom that “not to be born is best” ismodified by Empedocles in light of his prior transgressions:

• Alas, that the pitiless day did not destroy me earlier,
• Before I contrived terrible deeds about feeding with my claws! (D76.5–6)

This fragment, although traditionally attributed to thePurifications, we now know is fromOn Nature, againpointing to the fundamental unity of what have been perceived asphysical and ritual doctrines. Vegetarianism becomes an antidote tothe cannibalism inherent in meat-eating, and the extant fragments showsimilar injunctions against bay leaves (B 140 = D 32) and beans (B 141= D 31).

At an earlier stage in the cycle with Love more powerful, humansenjoyed a kind of Golden Age of prosperity and peace. Under herinfluence, humans and animals are harmonious: beasts and birds becometame and gentle (B 130 = D 26). For these humans, the worship of Loverejects blood sacrifice for honey, myrrh, perfume, and votives (B 128= D 25). Early human history thus models the ethical norms that mustbe recovered in Empedocles’ modernity in order to become pureand advance in the cycle of incarnations. The focus upon ethics in thePurifications is a radical shift from prior Presocraticdiscourse (Barnes 1979). Abstaining from meat, bay, beans, andheterosexual congress may place the cycle in the realm of humanmanipulation, and thePurifications thus has a didacticmessage with the potential to accelerate the daemon’s path fromhuman to divine being. More speculatively, it has been suggested thatthe motion of the cycle itself can be changed on the basis of humanaction (Osborne 2005), though this has not gone unchallenged(Picot-Berg 2015).

3.2 Gods and daemons

The prominence of the divine is made clear in the fragments of thePurifications. In an introduction or an introductory section,Empedocles asks the Muse, Calliope, to aid his inspired discourseabout the “blessed gods” (B 131 = D 7). Who are thesefigures (Picot 2022)? According to Hippolytus, Empedocles’ godsinclude the four elements—Zeus, Hera, Aidoneus, andNestis—and the two powers, Love and Strife (Refutation ofAll Heresies 7.29). Each plays a crucial role in the cycle oftransmigration outlined in the poem: Strife governs the exile of thedaemon; the elements hate and successively reject it; and the worshipof Love creates the conditions for the daemon’s restoration.This restoration to godhood further expands the pantheon to includegods who enjoy a shared hearth and banqueting, the absence of humanmisery, and freedom from destruction (B 147 = D 40). They are subjectto the divine “oracle of Necessity” mandating againstbloodshed and they fall into the cycle of transmigration afterforeswearing it, becoming daemons like Empedocles.

Daemons constitute a sub-category of gods “who have received aslot a long life” (B 115 = D 10), and by qualifying theirimmortality Empedocles adapts their traditional association with fateand a protecting spirit for humans as is evident in, for example,Hesiod (Erg. 122, 314). The cycle constantly renews the bodyof the daemon; in one fragment, a female subject is described as“enveloping in an unfamiliar cloak of flesh” (B 126 = D19) a figure regularly interpreted as the daemon. At the same time,the fragments take for granted some set of stable qualities that areincrementally purified. Scholars also generally accept somepsychological continuity between the daemon and its mortalincarnations (Barnes 1979; Long 2015). In the absence of anyEmpedoclean discussion of the soul or an incorporeal carrier, thematerial makeup of the daemon continues to be debated, with argumentsfor it as Love and Strife (Cornford 1912); embodied Love (Kahn 1960);incorporeal imprints of the Sphere (Therme 2010);aither(Shaw 2014); or compounds of the roots (Barnes 1979, Trépanier2014, 2017, 2020) – the controversy has even led to thereassertion of the fundamental incompatibility of Empedocles’daemonology and physics (Santaniello 2021), although this remains aminority view. Presumably, unlike the roots and Love and Strife, these“long-lived” gods will be subject to dissolution under thetotal reigns of Love or Strife (B 21 = D 77a).

Daemons occupy transient forms, incarnating into plant life, animals,and humans. Empedocles relates that they wander in these for thirtythousand seasons. Their exile on earth is well-expressed by Empedoclesin his affirmation that while the daemon transmigrates, it neitherreaches the abode of Zeus nor the palace of Hades (B 142 = D 12). Itis a period of suffering and loss, underscoring the importance of theescape that is the daemon’s return to godhood. Incarnationappears to form a “ladder”. The highest order of plants isthe laurel, and of animals, the lion. Empedocles states of humans:

• At the end they become seers, hymn singers, doctors,
• And leaders for humans on the earth,
• And then they blossom up as gods, the greatest in honors. (B 146 =D 39)

Since antiquity, these figures have been interpreted as ethicallyideal types, as closely allied with Love. If this is correct, then thedaemons have become purified of Strife at this end point in the cycle.Empedocles’ identification of himself as one ‘trusting inmad Strife’ (B 115 = D 10) may, however, indicate the continuinginfluence of Strife (Tor 2022), even at the end of the ladder. Analternative suggestion is that an alliance with Love and purificationis unnecessary and that “time served” is sufficient tograduate a daemon to godhood (Picot-Berg 2015).

Perhaps the most important question mark surrounds the issue of theposition of the daemon in the wider cosmic alternation of Love andStrife. The fragments give no unequivocal direction on integratingtransmigration into the ultimate dissolution of the elements underStrife or their complete mixture under Love. Nor do scholars yet agreeon a methodology for approaching this issue (Marciano 2001). Muchearlier scholarship rejected the compatibility of the cosmic anddaemonic cycles (Diels 1898). A related solution has been to suggestthat the cycle of the daemon is a mythological allegory of thephysical cycles of Love and Strife (Primavesi 2008). ). On thisreading, for example, the rupture of the Sphere mirrors the breakdownin the community of daemons. More often, interpreters attempted tounite the cycles of transmigration within the broader movements towardthe one and the many. This suggests that there is no eternal paradisefor the daemon after attaining godhood again.

4. Relation ofOn Nature toPurifications

The relation betweenOn Nature andPurifications isthe subject of varied speculations. Once it was thought that the firstwas a scientific work and the latter a religious one. Since thesecategories were understood to be antithetical, there could be norelation at all between them; Empedocles had just written twoincompatible poems. More recently, as the usefulness of such a rigiddichotomy seemed less plausible, commentators have seen the teachingabout nature as continuous withPurifications. Both, afterall, give a prominent place to Love and Strife. Nature, then, is ruledby the very same principles that are the key to understanding thedrama of the ethical life, as Empedocles represents that.Understanding how nature works, one will want to side with Love andnot Strife—especially, one will want to avoid the shedding ofblood, that whereby we think and perceive, the very principle ofconscious life. This sort of approach sees a complementarity betweenthe natural philosophy and the religious narrative. However, in lightof the Strasbourg manuscript, some have argued for a tighter unity.Martin and Primavesi, for instance, focus on a part ofensemblea which describes the moment whenStrife dominates in the vortex and Love comes to be in its center.This description mirrors the same event described in B 35 (= D 75),except that, besides roots being united by Love, there are alsopersons of some sort being united in Love. According to the authors,these persons are the incarnateddaimones ofPurifications; in turn, thesedaimones, whosepunishment through incarnation is coming to an end, are also particlesof Love. The dissolution of composite beings under Strife, then,liberates these particles of Love from their cycle of incarnation andthey unite in Love at its advent in the center of the whirl (Martinand Primavesi 1999: 83–86, 90–95). Such interpretationsmight imply that there are not two poems but one. Nevertheless, theway textual support has been marshaled for these sorts of readings hasnot gone uncriticized (see Laks 2002, Bollack 2005).

Another interpretation has been proposed, which views the differencesin emphasis between the works as not necessarily establishing twoseparate texts, but two ‘levels’ of teaching: esoteric andexoteric (Curd 2005). On this reading, Empedocles is in factaddressing two audiences, one general, represented by the people ofAcragas and the second-person plural, and one specialized group ofintimates, represented by the appeals to Pausanias and the use of thesecond-person singular. The general audience is instructed in publiclectures on the necessity of purifying themselves and the means to doso. By contrast, the inner circle receives a detailed explanation ofthe cosmos’ inner workings, a more rigorous account ofEmpedocles’ daemonology, and unique powers.

Finally, there has been a recent reconstruction of thePurifications andOn Nature that assigns most of ourextant fragments toOn Nature, a move that aims to reconcileEmpedocles’ physics and daemonology by placing them in the samework (Ferella 2024). ThePurifications is viewed as a(largely lost) potpourri of regulations on purification, ritualoracles, and healing utterances (Sedley 1989); meanwhile,OnNature becomes the vehicle for Empedocles’ physicalphilosophy as well as his doctrine on crime, punishment, rebirth, andpurification. If this is correct, Empedocles’ proemial narrativeof his exiled divinity authorizes the philosopher as one able topronounce on the nature of things and presages the vital importance ofmetamorphosis in the physics. At the same time, the dialectic betweenthe ‘long lived’ gods and mortals who continually die andare reborn finds its analogue in the cosmic actions of Love and Strifewho persist through a world of exchange, of combination anddissolution (Ferella 2024).

5. Influence

As a testament to the success of Empedocles’ philosophy in itsafterlife, the philosopher boasts the largest number of preservedPresocratic fragments. His popularity soon after his death is assuredby a reference to him in the HippocraticAncient Medicine, inwhich the author protests that:

Some doctors and experts (sophistae) say that it isimpossible for anyone to know medicine who does not know what a humanbeing is […]. But what they are talking about belongs tophilosophy (philosophiē), like Empedocles and otherpeople who have written about nature—what a human being is fromthe beginning, how he came about at first and what things he isconstituted of. (A 71 = R 6)

Part of this success must be attributed to Empedocles’reputation as a poet rivaling Homer for his inspired use of dictionand metaphor (A 1 = R 1b). Lactantius wondered whether to class himamong the philosophers or poets (A 24 = R 3b). Indeed,Empedocles’ choice of verse as a medium enacts important effectsupon the audience (Mackenzie 2021). Yet Empedocles’philosophical theories too excited great interest in his successors.Plato regularly refers to him by name, and in theSymposiumhe puts in the mouth of the comic poet Aristophanes a re-workedversion of the origin of the human that lampoons Empedoclean Love andStrife and Empedocles’ interpretation of the evolutionarydevelopment of the human species: a former spherical unity is splitinto two and then only comes together through the influence of eroticLove (O’Brien 2002). Aristotle was similarly influenced by him;he mentions no philosopher with greater frequency except Plato. Hiscritiques range from Empedocles’ treatment of the generation ofelements (R 8a), to the problems of Love and Strife as motiveprinciples (A 42 = R 12 and 13), to the motionlessness of the earth (R14), to the growth of plants and animals (A 70 = R 17), to thegeneration of animal organisms (R 19). His successor, Theophrastus,devotes a long, agonistic section of hisOn Sensations toattacking Empedocles’ interpretations of sight, sound, smell,and thought (A 86 = R 25). Timon of Phlius’Silloiridiculed his use of elements (A 1 = R 37). Empedocles remained atouchstone among the Stoics and Epicureans as well: a pupil ofEpicurus’, Hermarchus, wrote anAgainst Empedocles intwenty-two books (Obbink 1988), while in hisDe Rerum Natura,Lucretius offers fulsome—though not unqualified—praise ofthe Agrigentine, who “scarcely seems to have been born of humanstock” (A 21.21 = R 31.733; complete translation of the entirework is in Rouse 1924). Chrysippus is said to have interpretedpassages of his poetry (R 40a–b) and the Stoics were associatedwith the element of fire that Empedocles may have given someprominence to (A 31 = R 41). Sallust composed an entireEmpedoclea, which Cicero commended to his brother (A 27 = R36). Plutarch is said to have written a ten-book work on Empedocles;in his extant works, he refers to and cites Empedocles more thaneighty times (Hershbell 1971; Jazdzewska 2020). Thanks to this robustearly tradition, rich exegesis on Empedocles continued in commentarieswritten on these authors and by the early Christians until well intolate antiquity. Empedocles’ immortal hold on his readerscontinues. Friedrich Hölderlin’s unfinished drafts ofDer Tod des Empedokles continue to inspire modern analysis(Foti 2006), and Nietzsche’s “stillbirth” tragedy onEmpedocles has been well-treated recently (Most 2005), as has MatthewArnold’s “Empedocles on Etna” (Kenny 2005).

Bibliography

• Andolfi, Ilaria, 2020, “EmpedoclesArbiterSymposii: Luxury, Political Equality, and Bizzare Dinner Partiesin Fifth-century Acragas”,Histos, 14:206–30.
• Balaudé, Jean-François, 2010,Le savoir-vivrephilosophique: Empédocle, Socrate, Platon, Paris: BernardGrasset.
• Barnes, Jonathan, 1979,The Presocratic Philosophers, 2volumes, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• –––, 1984,The Complete Works of Aristotle:The Revised Oxford Translation, 2 volumes, Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.
• Bollack, Jean, 1965–1969,Empédocle, 4volumes, Paris: Les Editions Minuit.
• –––, 2005, “Empedocles: Two Theologies,Two Projects”, in Pierris 2005: 45–72.
• Chitwood, Ava, 1986, “The Death of Empedocles”,The American Journal of Philology, 107(2): 175–191.doi:10.2307/294601
• Cornford, Frances MacDonald, 1912,From Religion toPhilosophy: A Study in the Origins of Western Speculation,London: Edward Arnold.
• Curd, Patricia, 2001, “A New Empedocles? Implications of theStrasburg Fragments for Presocratic Philosophy”,Proceedingsof the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, 17:27–59. doi:10.1163/22134417-90000027
• –––, 2005, “On the Question of Religionand Natural Philosophy in Empedocles”, in Pierris 2005:137–162.
• –––, 2016, “Empedocles on Sensation,Perception, and Thought”, inAncient Epistemology,Katerina Ierodiakonou and Pieter Sjoerd Hasper (eds.),LogicalAnalysis and History of Philosophy/Philosophiegeschichte und logischeanalyse, Paderborn: mentis Verlag, 19: 38–57.
• Diels, Hermann, 1898, “Über die Gedichte desEmpedokles”,Sitzungberichte der Preussischen Akademie derWissenschaften, 63: 396–415.
• [DK] Diels, Hermann and Walther Kranz, 1951–2,DieFragmente der Vorsokratiker: griechish und deutsch, 6th edition,3 volumes, Berlin: WeidmannscheVerlagsbuchhandlung.
• Ferella, Chiara, 2021, “The Byzantine Scholia to Aristotleand Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle”,Mnemosyne, 74(6):978-1000. doi:10.1163/1568525X-BJA10010
• –––, 2024,Reconstructing Empedocles’Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Foti, Veronique M., 2006,Epochal Discordance:Hölderlin’s Philosophy of Tragedy, Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.
• Gheerbrant, Xavier, 2022, “Addressees, Knowledge, and Actionin Hesiod and Empedocles”, inHesiod and the Beginnings ofGreek Philosophy, Leopoldo Iribarren and Hugo Koning (eds.),Leiden, Boston: Brill, 263–93.doi:10.1163/9789004513921_015
• Guthrie, William Keith Chambers, 1965,A History of GreekPhilosophy:Volume II, The Presocratic Tradition fromParmenides to Democritus, Cambridge; London; New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
• Hershbell, Jackson P., 1971, “Plutarch as a Source forEmpedocles Re-examined”,The American Journal ofPhilology, 92(2): 156–184. doi:10.2307/293328
• Hicks, R. D. (trans.), 1925,Diogenes Laertius. Lives ofEminent Philosophers, 2 volumes (Loeb Classical Library,184–5), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Horky, Phillip Sydney, 2016, “EmpedoclesDemocraticus: Hellenistic Biography at the Intersection ofPhilosophy and Politics”, inBios Philosophos.Philosophy in Ancient Greek Biography, Mauro Bonazzi & StefanSchorn (eds.), Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 37–71.
• Ierodiakonou, Katerina, 2005, “Empedocles on Colour andColour Vision”,Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy,David Sedley (ed.), 29: 1–37.
• Inwood, Brad, 2001,The Poem of Empedocles, RevisedEdition, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• Janko, Richard, 2004, “Empedocles, ‘On Nature’ I233–364: A New Reconstruction of ‘P. Strasb. Gr.’Inv. 1665–6”,Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie UndEpigraphik, 150: 1–26.
• –––, 2005, “Empedocles’Physica Book 1: A New Reconstruction,” in Pierris 2005:93–136.
• Jazdzewska, Katarzyna, 2020, “Love in Many Dimensions:Hesiod and Empedocles in Plutarch’sAmatorius”,inThe Dynamics of Intertextuality in Plutarch, Thomas S.Schmidt, Maria Vamvouri, and Rainer Hirsch-Luipold (eds.), Leiden,Boston: Brill, 459–74. doi:10.1163/9789004427860_032
• Kahn, Charles H., 1960, “Religion and Natural Philosophy inEmpedocles’ Doctrine of the Soul”,Archiv fürGeschichte der Philosophie, 42(1): 3–35.
• Kalderon, Mark Eli, 2015,Form without Matter: Empedocles andAristotle on Color Perception, Oxford: Oxford University Press.doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717904.001.0001
• Kamtekar, Rachana, 2009, “Knowing by Likeness inEmpedocles”,Phronesis, 54(3): 215–238.doi:10.1163/156852809X441359
• Kenny, Anthony, 2005, “Life after Etna: The Legend ofEmpedocles in Literary Tradition”, in Pierris 2005:17–30.
• Kingsley, Peter, 1995,Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic:Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
• –––, 2002, “Empedocles for the NewMillennium”:,Ancient Philosophy, 22(2): 333–413.doi:10.5840/ancientphil200222224
• Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield, 1983,ThePresocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection ofTexts, second edition, Cambridge University Press.doi:10.1017/CBO9780511813375
• Laks, André, 2001, “À Propos del’édition de l’Empédocle deStrasbourg”,Méthexis, 14: 117–125.doi:10.1163/24680974-90000382
• –––, 2002, “Reading the Readings: On theFirst Person Plurals in the Strasburg Empedocles,” inPresocratic Philosophy: Essays in Honour of AlexanderMourelatos, Victor Caston and Daniel W. Graham (eds.),Burlington: Ashgate, 127–137.
• Laks, André and Glenn W. Most (trans. and eds.), 2016,Early Greek Philosophy Vol. V: Western Greek Thinkers, Part 2(Loeb Classical Library, 528), Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
• Long, A. A., 1966, “Thinking and Sense-Perception inEmpedocles: Mysticism or Materialism”,ClassicalQuarterly, 16(2): 256–276.doi:10.1017/S000983880002992X
• –––, 1974, “Empedocles’ Cosmic Cyclein the ’Sixties”, inThe Pre-Socratics: A Collectionof Critical Essays, Alexander P.D. Mourelatos (ed.), Garden City,NY: Anchor/Doubleday Press, 397–425.
• –––, 2015,Greek Models of Mind andSelf, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Mackenzie, Tom, 2021,Poetry and Poetics in the PresocraticPhilosophers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gemelli Marciano, M. Luisa, 2001, “Le»demonologie« Empedoclee : Problemi Di Metodo eAltro”,Aevum Antiquum, NS 1: 205–235.doi:10.1400/24156
• Martin, Alain and Oliver Primavesi,1999,L’Empédocle de Strasbourg, Berlin and NewYork: Walter de Gruyter.
• Most, Glenn, 2005, “The Stillbirth of a Tragedy. Nietzscheand Empedocles”, in Pierris 2005: 31–44.
• –––, 2007,“ἄλλος δ’έξ ἄλλουδέχεται: Presocratic Philosophyand Traditional Greek Epic”, inLiteratur und Religion,1:Wege zu einer mythisch-rituellen Poetik bei den Griechen,Anton Bierl, Rebecca Lämmle, Katharina Wesselmann (eds.),Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter, 271–302.
• Obbink, Dirk, 1988, “Hermarchus,AgainstEmpedocles”,Classical Quarterly, 38(2):428–435. doi:10.1017/S0009838800037046
• –––, 1993, “The Addressees ofEmpedocles”,Materiali e Discussioni per l’analisi DeiTesti Classici, 31: 51–98. doi:10.2307/40231039
• O’Brien, Denis, 1969,Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle: AReconstruction from the Fragments and Secondary Sources,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2001, “Empedocles: The WanderingDaimon and the Two Poems”,Aevum Antiquum, NS 1:79–179.
• –––, 2002, “Die Aristophanes’ Redeim Symposium: der Empedokleische Hintergrund und seine philosophischeBedeutung”, inPlaton als Mythologe, Neue Interpretationenzu den Mythen in Platons Dialoguen, Markus Janka and ChristianSchäfer (eds.), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,176–193.
• Osborne, Catherine (= C. Rowett), 1987, “EmpedoclesRecycled”,Classical Quarterly, 37(1): 24–50.doi:10.1017/S0009838800031633
• –––, “Rummaging in the Recycling Bins ofUpper Egypt: A Discussion of A. Martin and O. Primavesi,L’Empédocle de Strasbourg”,Oxford Studies inAncient Philosophy, David Sedley (ed.), 18: 329–356.
• –––, 2005, “Sin and Moral Responsibilityin Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle”, in Pierris 2005:283–308.
• Palmer, John, 2019, “Presocratic Interest in theSoul’s Persistence After death,” inPhilosophy of Mindin Antiquity: The History of the Philosophy of Mind, Volume 1,John E. Sisko (ed.), London: Routledge, 2019: 23–43.
• Picot, Jean-Claude, 2012, “Les dieux du fr. 128d’Empédocle et le mythe des races”,Revue demétaphysique et de morale, 75(3): 339–409.doi:10.3917/rmm.123.0339
• –––, 2022,Empédocle, Sur le chemindes dieux, Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
• Picot, Jean-Claude and William Berg, 2015, “Lions andpromoi: Final Phase of Exile for Empedocles’daimones”,Phronesis, 60(4): 380–409.doi:10.1163/15685284-12341290
• Pierris, Apostolos L. (ed.), 2005,The Empedoclean Kosmos:Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. Proceedings of theSymposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense July 6th–July13th, 2003, Patras, Greece: Institute for PhilosophicalResearch.
• Primavesi, Oliver, 2009, “Empedocles: Physical and MythicalDivinity”, inThe Oxford Handbook of PresocraticPhilosophy, Patricia Curd and Daniel W. Graham (eds.), Oxford:Oxford University Press, 250–283.doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195146875.003.0009
• –––, 2008,Empedokles: Physika I. EineRekonstruktion des zentralen Gedankengangs, Berlin and New York:de Gruyter.
• –––, 2016, “Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycleand the Pythagorean Tetractys”,Rhizomata, 4(1):5–29. doi:10.1515/rhiz-2016-0002
• Rashed, Marwan, 2001, “La chronographie du systèmed’Empédocle: documents byzantins inédits”,Aevum Antiquum, NS 1: 237–259.
• –––, 2007, “The Structure Of The Eye AndIts Cosmological Function In Empedocles. Reconstruction Of Fragment 84D.-K”, inReading Ancient Texts. Volume I: Presocratics andPlato, Suzanne Stern-Gillet and Kevin Corrigan (eds.), Leiden andBoston: Brill, 21–39. doi:10.1163/ej.9789004165090.i-230.8
• –––, 2011, “La Zoogonie de La Haine SelonEmpédocle: Retour Sur l’ensemble ‘d’ DuPapyrus d’Akhmim”,Phronesis, 56(1): 33–57.doi:10.1163/156852811X540419
• –––, 2014, “La Chronographie DuSystème d’Empédocle: Addenda et Corrigenda”,Les Études Philosophiques, 3: 315–342.
• –––, 2018,La jeune fille et lasphère: études sur Empédocle, Paris: Pressesde l’Université Paris-Sorbonne.
• Rouse, W. H. D. (trans.), 1924,Lucretius. On the Nature ofThings (Loeb Classical Library, 181), Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
• Rowett, Catherine (= C. Osborne), 2016, “Love, Sex and theGods: Why Things Have Divine Names in Empedocles’ Poem, and WhyThey Come in Pairs”,Rhizomata, 4(1): 80–100.doi:10.1515/rhiz-2016-0005
• Santamaría, Marco Antonio, 2022, “Divine Crime andPunishment: Breaking the Cosmic Law in Hesiod’sTheogony 783–806 and Empedocles’ Fragment DKB115”, inHesiod and the Beginnings of GreekPhilosophy, Leopoldo Iribarren and Hugo Koning (eds.), Leiden,Boston: Brill, 294–312. doi:10.1163/9789004513921_016
• Santaniello, Carlo, 2021, “Are Empedoclean Daimons ReallyMade of Anything? The Nature of the Daimon and Fragment 115”, inPenser les dieux avec les Présocratiques. Etudes delittérature ancienne 28, Rossella Saetta Cottone (ed.), Paris:Rue d’Ulm, 143–59.
• –––, 2022, “EmpedoclesDemocraticus?”, in Our Beloved Polites: Studies presented toP.J. Rhodes, Delfim Leão, Daniela Ferreira, Nuno SimõesRodrigues, Rui Morais (eds.), Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology,256–71. doi:10.2307/j.ctv2ws5363.26
• Sassi, Maria Michela, 2016, “Parmenides and Empedocles onKrasis and Knowledge”,Apeiron, 49(4):451–469. doi:10.1515/apeiron-2015-0005
• Sedley, David, 2016, “Empedoclean Superorganisms”,Rhizomata, 4(1): 111–125.doi:10.1515/rhiz-2016-0006
• Solmsen, Friedrich, 1965, “Love and Strife inEmpedocles’ Cosmology”,Phronesis, 10(2):109–48.
• Strauss Clay, Jenny, 2022, “Hesiod reads Empedocles”,inHesiod and the Beginnings of Greek Philosophy, LeopoldoIribarren and Hugo Koning (eds.), Leiden, Boston: Brill,198–217. doi:10.1163/9789004513921_012
• Therme, Anne-Laure, 2010, “Une tragédie cosmique:L’exil amnésique desdaimonesd’Empédocle”, in S. Alexandre and O. Renaut (eds.),Rationalité tragique, Zetesis: Actes des colloques del’association, 1: 1–29.
• Tor, Saul, 2022, “Empedocles the Wandering Daimōn andTrusting in Mad Strife”,Phronesis, 68(1): 1–30.doi:10.1163/15685284-bja10065
• Trépanier, Simon, 2003, “Empedocles on the UltimateSymmetry of the World”,Oxford Studies in AncientPhilosophy, David Sedley (ed.), 24: 1–57.
• –––, 2004,Empedocles. AnInterpretation, New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2014, “From Wandering Limbs toLimbless Gods: Δαίμων as Substance inEmpedocles”,Apeiron, 47(2): 172–210.doi:10.1515/apeiron-2012-0033
• –––, 2017, “From Hades to the stars:Empedocles on the cosmic habitats of soul”,ClassicalAntiquity, 36(1): 130–182.doi:10.1525/ca.2017.36.1.130
• –––, 2020, “The Spirit in the Flesh:Empedocles on Embodied Soul”, inHeat, Pneuma, and Soul inAncient Philosophy and Science, Hynek Bartoš and ColinGuthrie King (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,80–105. doi:10.1017/9781108651714.006
• Wellmann, Tom, 2020,Die Entstehung der Welt: Studien zumStraßburger Empedokles-Papyrus, Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Wright, M.R., 1981,Empedocles: the Extant Fragments, NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press, 1981. Reprinted Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing, 1995.

Academic Tools

	How to cite this entry.
	Preview the PDF version of this entry at theFriends of the SEP Society.
	Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
	Enhanced bibliography for this entryatPhilPapers, with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

• Parry, Richard, “Empedocles,”StanfordEncyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta(ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/empedocles/>. [This was the previous entry on Empedocles in theStanfordEncyclopedia of Philosophy — see theversion history.]
• Empedocles of Acragas, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• empedocles.acragas, authoritative and regularly updated online bibliography, initialdevelopment by Tomáš Vítek, and maintained byJean-Claude Picot.
  • Bibliography A-Z: Supplement, a supplement to Tomáš Vítek and Jean-Claude Picot bibliography.
• Empedocles, The History of Philosophy Podcast

Related Entries

Aristotle |doxography of ancient philosophy |Plato |Presocratic Philosophy |Pythagoras