| Title | Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1965 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 109-148 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Solmsen, Friedrich |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In Heraclitus and Parmenides, assumptions which form the basis of our interpretation are subject to frequent reexaminations and revisions. With Empedocles, matters are different. Here, large hypotheses have for a long time remained unchallenged and are now near the point of hardening into dogmas. In particular, the reconstruction of a dual cosmogony in his "cycle," originally a theory which had to contend with others, is now often regarded as established, treated as though it were a fact, and used as a premise for further inferences. The only full-scale interpretation of the evidence which backs up this theory is Ettore Bignone's Empedocle; yet, whatever the merits of this book, it can hardly be denied that in the fifty years since its publication we have learned many new lessons regarding the relative value of testimonies and fragments, the trustworthiness of Aristotle's reports on his precursors, and other questions of vital bearing on the reconstruction of a Presocratic system. A recent textbook which seeks to fit the material into the framework of two cosmogonies does not, in my opinion, succeed in strengthening this position; on the contrary, it may be said that difficulties which were less apparent as long as the discussion confined itself to individual fragments or groups of fragments become more visible when the entire scheme is worked out and presented. Perhaps the wisest course would be to admit ignorance on crucial points. If I, nevertheless, prefer to offer an alternative reconstruction— in essential aspects a revival of von Arnim's—my hope is that, whether right or wrong, it will serve a good purpose if it shows that opinions currently accepted are not firmly grounded in the evidence at our disposal. I have made no methodical commitment except to keep the Καθαρμοί out of the discussion of Περὶ φύσεως. Similar or identical motifs, like the fundamental importance of Love and Strife, the kinship of all living beings, are clearly present in both poems, but to argue from recurring motifs to an identity or similarity of doctrine is nothing less than a petitio. There are too many unknown factors. The time interval may have been long or short. The question of priority has not been settled. We cannot assume that Empedocles' mind was of a rigidly dogmatic cast incapable of responding to new experiences and impressions (nor can we know what these experiences may have been). What we do see is that his attitude to "reality" differs in the two works. Surely, the place for a comparison is after the reconstruction of the poems, not prior to or in the course of it. [introduction p. 109-110] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/S9osco1gJvTdfSD |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"846","_score":null,"_source":{"id":846,"authors_free":[{"id":1250,"entry_id":846,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":316,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","free_first_name":"Friedrich","free_last_name":"Solmsen","norm_person":{"id":316,"first_name":"Friedrich","last_name":"Solmsen","full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117754641","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology","main_title":{"title":"Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology"},"abstract":"In Heraclitus and Parmenides, assumptions which form the basis of our interpretation are subject to frequent reexaminations and revisions. With Empedocles, matters are different. Here, large hypotheses have for a long time remained unchallenged and are now near the point of hardening into dogmas. In particular, the reconstruction of a dual cosmogony in his \"cycle,\" originally a theory which had to contend with others, is now often regarded as established, treated as though it were a fact, and used as a premise for further inferences.\r\n\r\nThe only full-scale interpretation of the evidence which backs up this theory is Ettore Bignone's Empedocle; yet, whatever the merits of this book, it can hardly be denied that in the fifty years since its publication we have learned many new lessons regarding the relative value of testimonies and fragments, the trustworthiness of Aristotle's reports on his precursors, and other questions of vital bearing on the reconstruction of a Presocratic system. A recent textbook which seeks to fit the material into the framework of two cosmogonies does not, in my opinion, succeed in strengthening this position; on the contrary, it may be said that difficulties which were less apparent as long as the discussion confined itself to individual fragments or groups of fragments become more visible when the entire scheme is worked out and presented.\r\n\r\nPerhaps the wisest course would be to admit ignorance on crucial points. If I, nevertheless, prefer to offer an alternative reconstruction\u2014 in essential aspects a revival of von Arnim's\u2014my hope is that, whether right or wrong, it will serve a good purpose if it shows that opinions currently accepted are not firmly grounded in the evidence at our disposal. I have made no methodical commitment except to keep the \u039a\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03af out of the discussion of \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Similar or identical motifs, like the fundamental importance of Love and Strife, the kinship of all living beings, are clearly present in both poems, but to argue from recurring motifs to an identity or similarity of doctrine is nothing less than a petitio.\r\n\r\nThere are too many unknown factors. The time interval may have been long or short. The question of priority has not been settled. We cannot assume that Empedocles' mind was of a rigidly dogmatic cast incapable of responding to new experiences and impressions (nor can we know what these experiences may have been). What we do see is that his attitude to \"reality\" differs in the two works. Surely, the place for a comparison is after the reconstruction of the poems, not prior to or in the course of it. [introduction p. 109-110]","btype":3,"date":"1965","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/S9osco1gJvTdfSD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":316,"full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":846,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"10","issue":"2","pages":"109-148"}},"sort":[1965]}
| Title | Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1965 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 109-148 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Solmsen, Friedrich |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In Heraclitus and Parmenides, assumptions which form the basis of our interpretation are subject to frequent reexaminations and revisions. With Empedocles, matters are different. Here, large hypotheses have for a long time remained unchallenged and are now near the point of hardening into dogmas. In particular, the reconstruction of a dual cosmogony in his "cycle," originally a theory which had to contend with others, is now often regarded as established, treated as though it were a fact, and used as a premise for further inferences. The only full-scale interpretation of the evidence which backs up this theory is Ettore Bignone's Empedocle; yet, whatever the merits of this book, it can hardly be denied that in the fifty years since its publication we have learned many new lessons regarding the relative value of testimonies and fragments, the trustworthiness of Aristotle's reports on his precursors, and other questions of vital bearing on the reconstruction of a Presocratic system. A recent textbook which seeks to fit the material into the framework of two cosmogonies does not, in my opinion, succeed in strengthening this position; on the contrary, it may be said that difficulties which were less apparent as long as the discussion confined itself to individual fragments or groups of fragments become more visible when the entire scheme is worked out and presented. Perhaps the wisest course would be to admit ignorance on crucial points. If I, nevertheless, prefer to offer an alternative reconstruction— in essential aspects a revival of von Arnim's—my hope is that, whether right or wrong, it will serve a good purpose if it shows that opinions currently accepted are not firmly grounded in the evidence at our disposal. I have made no methodical commitment except to keep the Καθαρμοί out of the discussion of Περὶ φύσεως. Similar or identical motifs, like the fundamental importance of Love and Strife, the kinship of all living beings, are clearly present in both poems, but to argue from recurring motifs to an identity or similarity of doctrine is nothing less than a petitio. There are too many unknown factors. The time interval may have been long or short. The question of priority has not been settled. We cannot assume that Empedocles' mind was of a rigidly dogmatic cast incapable of responding to new experiences and impressions (nor can we know what these experiences may have been). What we do see is that his attitude to "reality" differs in the two works. Surely, the place for a comparison is after the reconstruction of the poems, not prior to or in the course of it. [introduction p. 109-110] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/S9osco1gJvTdfSD |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"846","_score":null,"_source":{"id":846,"authors_free":[{"id":1250,"entry_id":846,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":316,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","free_first_name":"Friedrich","free_last_name":"Solmsen","norm_person":{"id":316,"first_name":"Friedrich","last_name":"Solmsen","full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117754641","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology","main_title":{"title":"Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology"},"abstract":"In Heraclitus and Parmenides, assumptions which form the basis of our interpretation are subject to frequent reexaminations and revisions. With Empedocles, matters are different. Here, large hypotheses have for a long time remained unchallenged and are now near the point of hardening into dogmas. In particular, the reconstruction of a dual cosmogony in his \"cycle,\" originally a theory which had to contend with others, is now often regarded as established, treated as though it were a fact, and used as a premise for further inferences.\r\n\r\nThe only full-scale interpretation of the evidence which backs up this theory is Ettore Bignone's Empedocle; yet, whatever the merits of this book, it can hardly be denied that in the fifty years since its publication we have learned many new lessons regarding the relative value of testimonies and fragments, the trustworthiness of Aristotle's reports on his precursors, and other questions of vital bearing on the reconstruction of a Presocratic system. A recent textbook which seeks to fit the material into the framework of two cosmogonies does not, in my opinion, succeed in strengthening this position; on the contrary, it may be said that difficulties which were less apparent as long as the discussion confined itself to individual fragments or groups of fragments become more visible when the entire scheme is worked out and presented.\r\n\r\nPerhaps the wisest course would be to admit ignorance on crucial points. If I, nevertheless, prefer to offer an alternative reconstruction\u2014 in essential aspects a revival of von Arnim's\u2014my hope is that, whether right or wrong, it will serve a good purpose if it shows that opinions currently accepted are not firmly grounded in the evidence at our disposal. I have made no methodical commitment except to keep the \u039a\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03af out of the discussion of \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Similar or identical motifs, like the fundamental importance of Love and Strife, the kinship of all living beings, are clearly present in both poems, but to argue from recurring motifs to an identity or similarity of doctrine is nothing less than a petitio.\r\n\r\nThere are too many unknown factors. The time interval may have been long or short. The question of priority has not been settled. We cannot assume that Empedocles' mind was of a rigidly dogmatic cast incapable of responding to new experiences and impressions (nor can we know what these experiences may have been). What we do see is that his attitude to \"reality\" differs in the two works. Surely, the place for a comparison is after the reconstruction of the poems, not prior to or in the course of it. [introduction p. 109-110]","btype":3,"date":"1965","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/S9osco1gJvTdfSD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":316,"full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":846,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"10","issue":"2","pages":"109-148"}},"sort":["Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology"]}