Theophrastos tells us that Empedokles made no distinction between thought and perception, a remark already made by Aristotle.[[644]] The chief seat of perception was the blood, in which the four elements are most evenly mixed, and especially the blood near the heart (fr. [105]).[[645]] This does not, however, exclude the idea that other parts of the body may perceive also; indeed, Empedokles held that all things have their share of thought (fr. [103]). But the blood was specially sensitive because of its finer mixture.[[646]] From this it naturally follows that Empedokles adopted the view, already maintained in the Second Part of the poem of Parmenides (fr. [16]), that our knowledge varies with the varying constitution of our bodies (fr. [106]). This consideration became very important later on as one of the foundations of scepticism; but Empedokles himself only drew from it the conclusion that we must make the best use we can of our senses, and check one by the other (fr. [4]).
Theology and religion.
119. The theoretical theology of Empedokles reminds us of Xenophanes, his practical religious teaching of Pythagoras and the Orphics. We are told in the earlier part of the poem that certain “gods” are composed of the elements; and that therefore though they “live long lives” they must pass away (fr. [21]). We have seen that the elements and the Sphere are also called gods, but that is in quite another sense of the word.
If we turn to the religious teaching of the Purifications, we find that everything turns on the doctrine of transmigration. On the general significance of this enough has been said above ([§ 42]); the details given by Empedokles are peculiar. According to a decree of Necessity, “daemons” who have sinned are forced to wander from their home in heaven for three times ten thousand seasons (fr. [115]). He himself is such an exiled divinity, and has fallen from his high estate because he put his trust in raving Strife. The four elements toss him from one to the other with loathing; and so he has not only been a human being and a plant, but even a fish. The only way to purify oneself from the taint of original sin was by the cultivation of ceremonial holiness, by purifications, and abstinence from animal flesh. For the animals are our kinsmen (fr. [137]), and it is parricide to lay hands on them. In all this there are, no doubt, certain points of contact with the cosmology. We have the “mighty oath” (fr. [115]; cf. fr. [30]), the four elements, Hate as the source of original sin, and Kypris as queen in the Golden Age (fr. [128]). But these points are neither fundamental nor of great importance. And it cannot be denied that there are really contradictions between the two poems. That, however, is just what we should expect to find. All through this period, there seems to have been a gulf between men’s religious beliefs, if they had any, and their cosmological views. The few points of contact which we have mentioned may have been sufficient to hide this from Empedokles himself.
[501]. Aet. i. 3, 20 (R. P. 164), Apollodoros ap. Diog. viii. 52 (R. P. 162). The details of the life of Empedokles are discussed, with a careful criticism of the sources, by Bidez, La biographie d’Empédocle (Gand, 1894).
[502]. For this we have the authority of Apollodoros (Diog. viii. 51, 52; R. P. 162), who follows the Olympic Victors of Eratosthenes, who in turn appealed to Aristotle. Herakleides of Pontos, in his Περὶ νόσων (see below, p. 233, [n. 520]), spoke of the elder Empedokles as a “breeder of horses” (R. P. 162 a); and Timaios mentioned him as a distinguished man in his Fifteenth Book.
[503]. Glaukos wrote Περὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων ποιητῶν καὶ μουσικῶν, and is said to have been contemporary with Demokritos (Diog. ix. 38). Apollodoros adds (R. P. 162) that, according to Aristotle and Herakleides, Empedokles died at the age of sixty. It is to be observed, however, that the words ἔτι δ’ Ἡρακλείδης are Sturz’s conjecture, the MSS. having ἔτι δ’ Ἡράκλειτον, and Diogenes certainly said (ix. 3) that Herakleitos lived sixty years. On the other hand, if the statement of Aristotle comes from the Περὶ ποιητῶν, it is not obvious why he should mention Herakleitos at all; and Herakleides was one of the chief sources for the biography of Empedokles.
[504]. See Diels, “Empedokles und Gorgias,” 2 (Berl. Sitzb., 1884). Theophrastos said that Empedokles was born “not long after Anaxagoras” (Dox. p. 477, 17); and Alkidamas made him the fellow-pupil of Zeno under Parmenides, and the teacher of Gorgias (see below, p. 231, [n. 5]). Now Gorgias was a little older than Antiphon (b. Ol. LXX.), so it is clear we must go back at least to 490 B.C. for the birth of Empedokles.
[505]. E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth. ii. p. 508.