7/25/2019 Bicknell, P. J. - The Shape of the Cosmos in Empedocles

1/1

THE

SHAPE

OF

TFIE

COSMOS

IN EMPEDOCI,trS

Accorcling

to

Aetius

as reporterl

by

John

of Stobi,

Empedocles

helil

the

follorving

orinions:

to {ou

ra .n

"c

Til

ei

tv

ot:pat,t,

itcg

otiv .g"

4p"ib

A,j"tcj.-

oc, n)'eiovu

ei.tctt r,.t

y,a,r,

r n).n,o

torctatt,

xut,

rata

ro

oi.pcl,ya

p.,)),o,t

.vutien^cu:,:tou

c

r

t nupan).qai.a

rv

xap.ov

xeio0..

G,thrie

2

lielieves

that

this

rotion

$as suggested

to

Empeclocles

'not

by

any observecl

facts,

but by

the poems

o{ the

Orphics, in

lvhose

cosmogony

&

r,vorld

egg g-ar,e

birth

to the

generative

power

of

Love

be{ore

the

existerce

of

heavc' a.cl

earth,

which

rvere

sub-

sequently

formecl

from

the tr,r'o

iralves

of the

egg'.

This explanation

is

surely

unacceptable.

Even if

it

can be

grantecl

that

orphic cosmogo'ies

irvolvi'g

a

rvorld

egg artedated

Empedocles,

and this

is

far

from

certain,3

it

is harrl

to

creilit

that

any

amou't

of

Orphic

plejuclice

coulcl

have

led

him

to go

against

the

facts

of

observation.

Tliis

Empeclocles

rvould have

had

to

do if he

rrelcl

that

an egg-shaped

cosmos

rotated

about

its shorter

axis. Accorcling

to

bis

vielv the

cosmos

lvas

bourrded

by

a solid,

crystalline

heaven

to

lvliich the

fixed stars

rvere attachecl.a

If

this

heaven

lvas egg-shaped,

then

to

observers

on

the

earth

the stals

near

to the

horizon

at

two

opposite

qur'te's

of it

rvo,lcl

apper'

to

be

closer

than those

at

the

other

tr,vo

quarte's.

As

lfeath

s

sarv,

such

a

cliffic'lty

could

o'ly

have

I

Aetius

2.31.

4

(DK

3.

^.50).

2

W.

K. C.

Gurrrnrr,

A l,Iistorl,

oJ

Greelc

Phlosoph,, lI

(Cnmbridge,

1965),

pp.

190-91;

a

sinrilar

vierv

has

been

taken

by

many

othcrs.

3

'I'he

mo-.l

ltalancecl

cliscussions

of

Lhe

qucstion

o{ ear.ly

Op|ict

cosrnogorries

is that

b Gurunrr,

ortheus

coul

Greelt,

Religion,

chapter

4.

Thc

co-.rrric

egg

at

Aristophancs'

Birds

93 f1. has,

o-[ course,

litle

cviclential

valur:

si.ce

the

cosrlogory

lhele

is that

of the

rircls,

a

Aeti.s

2. ll.2

(DK

31. A.5l)

ncl

2.13.

ll

(DK

31.4.54).

5

Sir Trror,r.rs [h.xtu,

Aristarcltos

oJ

TIIIiJ

SLIPI.]

OF'I}II

(OSN'IOS

IN EIPI'DOC]LIS

been

avoicled

if

Emireclocles

hacl

supposed

his ovoicl cosmos

to

rotate

rbout

its longer

axis, so that

tbe

plane containing

the surface

of

the

errth

coukl

be circuar.

Horvever,

if

this

rvere

the case

the

stars at

the zenith rvoultl

appeal

to

ar

obsetvel

to

be

{arther tlot

llearer

than

those at

the

horizon.

Empedocles,

thctr,

catrnot

liave

saicl

that tire

cosmos

was

ovoid.

ZeTler

6

rvas colrect

in

mair.rtaining that

he regardecl

it

as an

oblate

spheroicl

ancl that

the egg

comparison

is introducecl

only

to

make

the

point

that

the broadest

section of

the

spheroid is coinciilent

rvith

the

celestial

equator'.

Ihe

cosmos

lies as an

egg does

'lvhen

placecl

on a

flat sur{ace.

The

reason

for Empedocles

thus liolcling

that the

worlcl

rvas

a

flattened

rather than a

per{ect sphere was

no

doubt empirical.

Owing

to

their

greater brightness

tlie stars

overhead usually

seem

a

little

nearer

than

those

near tire horizon. Consequently,

tbe visible

portion

of

the

celestial

sphere appeals

to be a

flattened rather

than

a

hemisphericai

clome.

It

is

notervorthy

that

Empetlocles'

forced

adoption

of

an

oblate

spheroicl

lor

the shape of

the cosuros

led him

into

theoretical

complications.

Had he

been able

to

suppose that

the

cosmos,

formed

cluring

the transition

from

the rule

of

Love

to that

o{

Stri{e

over

the

{ortr roots

in the

spl.rere

o{

the All, rvas a

per{ect

srhere,

he could

quite

economically

and logically

have

made

it

anri

the

sphere

of

the All coterminous.

Sirrce

Parmenicles'

lroof

7

that

lhe

totality of

rvhat

is

mrtst be a

perfect

sphere

prevented him

{rom

allowing

the

ll even

temporarily to

lose

its

sphericity,

he was

committed

to

maintaining

that

his

notr'spherical cosmos

't\as

mol'e

or less

buried within

the

sphere

o{

the

;\ll

and surrouncled

by matter

rvhich

had

not

become

involveil

it.t cosmogony.

This

is clearly

strteil in

a

passage

o{

\etiusB rvhic]r

somee

irave

founcl

puzzling:

'l pn:oz). 6

zo-r.ov

pv v,

o

pvtot

r

nv

va

r

xap"o't,

)J.r

).Lyov

r,t ro

n.vr

rpo;,

t

onv

a,y'p

t t)'1t.

Parn

J.

BrcrNnn

Sro,s

(Orforcl,

191.3),

p.87,

note

1.

6

F.'ltttt'ttn, Die

Philosopltie tlcr Crie'

clrcn,

I,

erl. 7

cnlargctl

by

\V.

NESTLU,

p.

980,

note

2.

7

Parmenitle-',

I)K

28.B.81ines,12-{9.

I

-A.etius

1.5.2

(DK

31.A..47).

s

Sec

CurIInIr,

HGP,

lI,

p.

180.

I19