Shaw Aither and the Four Roots in Empedocles

8/19/2019 Shaw Aither and the Four Roots in Empedocles

1/24

© , , � | �.��/��-��

(�) �–�

brill.com/rp

R e s e a r chi n

Phenomeno logy

Aither and the Four Roots in Empedocles Michael M. Shaw

Utah Valley University

Abstract

This paper surveys the meaning of aither (αἰθήρ) in Empedocles. Since Aristotle,Empedoclean aither has been generally considered synonymous with air (ἀήρ) and

understood anachronistically in terms of its Aristotelian conception as hot and wet. In

critiquing this interpretation, the paper rst examines the meaning of “air” in

Empedocles, revealing scant and insignicant use of the term. Next, the ancient con-

troversy of Empedocles’ “four roots” is recast from the perspective that aither, rather

than air, designates the fourth root. Finally, the nineteen instances of aither in

Empedocles’ fragments are considered, revealing a bright and energetic root closely

related to the force of life.

Keywords

Empedocles – aither – elements – roots – air – Aristotle

…Blessed is he who has gained the wealth of divine wits; woe to him who has obscure opinion about the gods.

,

∵

Interpreters of Empedocles rarely mention aither (αἰθήρ), certain that it

means air (ἀήρ) and dismissing its relevance. Aristotle identies the two com-

All translations of Empedocles are from Daniel W. Graham, The Texts of Early Greek

Philosophy, Part I and Part II , hereafter . For complete bibliographical details of abbrevi-

ated texts, see list at end of this essay.


2/24

171

() –

pletely, setting the tone for Theophrastus, the doxographical tradition, and

contemporary scholarship. Surprisingly, aither appears up to nineteen timesin extant fragments, more than re, water, earth, or air. On the standard view,

as a synonym for air, aither casts a shadow of obscurity over the meaning ofthese fragments. Together, these passages reveal aither as a bright, rare, andenergetic force closer to re than water on Empedocles’ spectrum. Rather than

a poetic synonym for air, aither emerges as a robust concept of a material morediverse and powerful than Homeric or Aristotelian air. Empedocles’ infrequentuses of ἀήρ appear more in line with his ancient counterparts as a modicationor compound of water. The insignicance of air in comparison with the strik-ing instances of aither call Aristotle’s hasty identication into question and

warrants further investigation into this fourth root. Aristotle’s profound inuence creates a host of problems when investigatingthe Presocratics, much like the diculties inherent in interpreting Aristotlethrough the Medieval tradition. In “Phenomenological Interpretations withRespect to Aristotle: Indication of the Hermeneutical Situation,” Heidegger

explores the limits of historical and philosophical investigation. He seeks a“phenomenological hermeneutics of facticity” whereby philosophy becomes

Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption, Α.1.314a15–19, 314a25–29, Β.6.334a1–5 (hereafter ),in The Complete Works of Aristotle, hereafter ; Physics, Β.4.196a20–23, in ; De Anima,

Α.1.404b11–15, in ; and Metaphysics Α.3. 984a5–11, in . See also Peter Kingsley, Ancient

Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and the Pythagorean Tradition, 20 and 20n19,

hereafter . On the doxographical tradition, see John Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy,

31–38, hereafter . On the inuence of Aristotle on Theophrastus, and Theophrastus on

the tradition, see J. B. McDiarmid, “Theophrastus on the Presocratic Causes,” in Studies in

Presocratic Philosophy, 178–238; hereafter .

See M. R. Wright, Empedocles: the Extant Fragments, 23 (hereafter ), where her table lists

aither as a word for air. There are more instances of αἰθήρ (19 by my count) than of any other word on the table, and more than the total number of all synonyms for either re (15), water

(15), or earth (17).

The literature commonly treats air as Empedocles’ fourth element. The notable exception is

Kingsley, , 20–28, who advocates aither over air, contra Aristotle. For a few signicant

examples of the assumption of air, see G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven, and M. Schoeld, The Presocratic

Philosophers (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 300; Wright, , 22–30; James

Longrigg, “Elements and After: A Study in Presocratic Physics of the Second Half of the Fifth

Century,” Apeiron 19, no. 2 (1985): 93–115; Charles H. Kahn, “Religion and Natural Philosophy

in Empedocles’ Doctrine of the Soul,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 42 (1960): 3–35,esp. 9–15, hereafter ; and Richard D. McKirahan, Philosophy Before Socrates, 257 (here-

after ), where aither is called another word for air. Graham, in , and Brad Inwood,

The Poem of Empedocles (hereafter ), employ “aether” or “aither” in their translations.

Martin Heidegger, “Phenomenological Interpretations with Respect to Aristotle: Indication

of the Hermeneutical Situation,” Man and World 25 (1992), hereafter .


3/24

172

() –

“simply the explicit interpretation of factical life” ( , 368, 369). The historical

traditions of Aristotelianism hinder this task of glimpsing ancient facticity.Heidegger highlights how neoscholastic theology, via the inuence of

Augustine, Neoplatonism, and other traditions, employs “a neo-Scholasticallymolded Aristotelianism” through which the basic Aristotelian doctrines aretreated according to a particular selection and interpretation” ( , 372).

Heidegger calls for a concrete interpretation of Aristotelian philosophy, which,through a phenomenological anthropology, can uncover a more primordial Aristotle, confronting core philosophical questions from the facticity of hisown time. “What is missing completely is an authentic interpretation with itscentral foundation in the basic philosophical problematic of facticity” ( ,

372). Later interpretations of Aristotle conceal his insights just as his opinionsocclude the intuitions of the Presocratic philosophers. To approach anyEmpedoclean facticity demands expelling these Aristotelian prejudices as faras possible to help unearth lost truths hidden in his thought.

The relationship of contemporary philosophy to Aristotle is reproduced,

mutatis mutandis, in the relationship of Aristotle to Empedocles. While theapproximately one hundred years that separates the latter two is dwarfed bythe millennia that separate us from the Greeks, radical changes in philosophy,culture, and religion during this time distinguish the facticity of Empedocles’ world from that of Aristotle’s. Just as Scholastic theology provides a particular

interpretation of Aristotle to suit its own needs, so does Aristotle provide apeculiar interpretation of Empedocles. Even though understanding the worldexactly as Empedocles saw it probably lies well beyond the reach of today’sscholars, we can still highlight the diferences between Aristotle’s reading of

the Acragantine and the evidence transmitted directly from the fragmentsthemselves.

This task is made all the more dicult by the profound inuence Aristotle

and his disciple Theophrastus have on the interpretation of the early Greekphilosophers. Their view of Empedocles’ four elements draws attention to this

problem, ofering ample textual moments of disparity between the extant frag-ments and Aristotle’s reading. Similarly, considering the meaning of aither inHomer, Hesiod, and his contemporary Anaxagoras discloses a material quiteunlike Aristotelian air. Nevertheless, Aristotle nds in Empedocles the histori-cal preguration of his own conception of the material principles of body.

Through Theophrastus, Aristotle’s interpretation of Empedocles as the pro-

genitor of earth, water, re, and air has dominated all subsequent interpreta-tion. By so forcefully maintaining the equivalence of αἰθήρ and ἀήρ, Aristotlehas nearly obliterated any role for aither in Empedoclean philosophy, a grossmisrepresentation of its signicance that calls for a careful examination of the


4/24

173

() –

relevant fragments. Perhaps one of the most original components of his

thought, aither is neither wet nor cold, but a bright, shining, energetic force with the capacity to explain a materialist conception of life, the transmigration

of souls, and the underlying unity of Empedocles’ universe.

1 The Meaning of Ἀήρ

Although Empedocles rarely uses ἀήρ, instances of air permeate the transla-tions of his fragments. Theophrastus follows Aristotle’s assertion of air as the

fourth element, and the doxographers fall in line behind them. For this reason,

the testimonia contain numerous references to air, and contemporary transla-tors commonly render αἰθήρ as “air.” These traditions silence the possibility ofa unique signicance for aither, preferring a term with no more than fouroccurrences in the extant fragments to one with up to nineteen. While

Empedocles does occasionally use ἀήρ, it is not clear he holds it as one of thefour basic roots of all things. As the work of Peter Kingsley has shown, only twoof the four instances are transmitted to us without suspect text. Of the six frag-ments that could reference ἀήρ, two are testimonia with the word absent in thefragments (B54 and B149), two likely result from textual corruption (B17 and

B78), and the remaining two ofer a conception of air as moist or related to water (B38 and B100), suggesting a meaning of ἀήρ closer to mist or cloud, as inHomer. A brief examination of these six fragments will be helpful to under-stand the signicance of aither.

Taken from Aristotle’s Physics Β.196a22–23, the context of B54 nds Aristotle,

who originates the interpretation that air is the fourth element, criticizingEmpedocles’ conception of chance. “Empedocles . . . said that air [ἀέρα] is notalways separated in the highest region but wherever it might chance.” He con-

tinues to cite B54: “for [it] happened to run in this way then, but often inanother way” (translation modied). As the fragment does not mention air, we

cannot be sure that this fragment does not actually relate to aither, which

See note 2 above. Burnet comments, “[Empedocles] does not call Air ἀήρ, but αἰθήρ,” so as not

to confuse air with its use in his predecessors (, 228–29). He also notes, “It was

Empedocles . . . who rst discovered that what we call air was a distinct corporeal substance,

and not identical either with vapour or empty space” (ibid., 74). Aristotle, Physics, Β.196a20–22, trans. Hippocrates G. Apostle (Grinnell, : The Peripatetic

Press, 1980), 32. See Β.3, on Aristotle’s conception of change, which requires air to be inter-

mediate between re and water, as hot and wet. Fire is hot/dry; air is hot/wet; water is cold/

wet; earth is cold/dry.


5/24

174

() –

Aristotle interprets as air. We should note rst that if Empedocles has aither in

mind, it would be thought not only to occupy the highest region of the heavensbut also to permeate the entire universe. Second, Aristotle, too, will construct

his heavens out of aither. B149 reads, νεφεληγερέτην, or “cloud-gatherer.”Theophrastus adds τὸν ἀέρα, so that, like B54, this need not be taken as authen-tically Empedoclean.

The Greek ἀήρ appears in just four other fragments. B17 provides by far thestrongest evidence for reading air as Empedocles’ fourth root. While Simplicius’text reads, “re, water, earth, and the lofty expanse of air (ἠέρος)” (B17, Line 18),alternate versions in Plutarch and Clement have αἰθέρος instead of ἠέρος asfourth in the list at line 18. With Plutarch as the earliest manuscript, and cor-

ruption more probable from αἰθέρος to ἠέρος, Diels’ decision to use ἠέρος in his volume is questionable, if not suspect. If Plutarch’s version is accepted, aither,seen as lofty like the heavens, names the fourth root. B79 is highly controversialas every manuscript has κατῆρα instead of Diels’ κατ ἠέρα. In both fragments,it is more likely that Empedocles did not use ἀήρ than that he did.

The two remaining fragments provide the only clear Empedoclean uses ofἀήρ. Interestingly, both also include instances of αἰθήρ in the same fragment.These fragments may support the equivalence of aither and air, or lend cre-dence to interpretations that air more closely resembles water. The dicult syn-tax of B38 generates some controversy, but it does suggest the kinship of air and

water.

Come, I will tell you from what things at rst (ἀρχήν) sunand all the other things we now look on emerged to sight,

In , “Empedocles,” B17 (line 18), B38 (line 3), B100 (line 13, where aither appears in lines5, 7, 18, and 24), B79 (line 2). Also, Graham’s F36, which Diels lists as a testimonia because it

is in Latin (, 364). Burnet points out the four Greek fragments ( , 228–29n2). Kingsley

( , 25–26) rejects air in favor of aither, supporting air as mist. He follows Burnet ( ,

219n3) both on rejecting the two corrupt fragments and rejecting the clepsydra fragment as

an Aristotelian error.

This would mean, “ furnished with abundant fruit” instead of “abundant fruit in the air .” See

Peter Kingsley, “Notes on Air: Four Questions of Meaning in Empedocles and Anaxagoras,”

The Classical Quarterly 45, no. 1 (1995): 26–29; and Peter Kingsley, “Empedocles and His

Interpreters: The Four-Element Doxography,” Phronesis (1994), hereafter . Burnet arguesfor the likelihood of αἰθήρ in B17, commenting, “Plutarch, however, has αἰθέρος, and it is obvi-

ous that this was more likely to be corrupted into ἠέρος than vice versa in an enumeration of

the elements” ( , 228n2). Plutarch (80 ) and Clement (190 ) have αἰθέρος, while the

later Sextus Empiricus (200 ) and Simplicius (510 ) have ἠέρος. Burnet also advocates the

meaning of ἀήρ as mist in B78.


6/24

175

() –

earth, [τε καὶ] sea covered with waves, [ἠδ] moist air (ὑγρὸς ἀήρ),

and Titan and [ἠδ] aither compressing them all in a circle. (, 368)

This fragment does not ofer a list of four precise terms, but does seem to poeti-cally describe the roots to a large extent. Empedocles tells of the rst (ἀρχήν)generation of all things to visibility. He distinguishes at least four kinds, but the

precise meaning requires more careful treatment than can be given here. Sunlikely represents re, while earth is self-evident. Sea covered with waves is joined to moist air by ἠδ, the same particle that links Titan and aither. Muchhinges on whether this particle unites or distinguishes. It seems most likelythat it unites, so that sea, waves, and moist air all describe water, while Titan

designates another name for aither. If ἠδε unites air and sea, on the one hand,and Titan and aither, on the other, the four roots are conceived as follows:(1) earth, (2) “sun” represents re, (3) “sea covered with waves, moist air”describes water, and (4) “Titan and aither compressing them all in a circle”elaborates aither. Most signicantly, air is clearly moist , “ὑγρὸς ἀήρ,” likely

completing the description of water as sea, waves, and moist air or mist. Thisclear instance of air treats it as ὑγρὸς (uid, liquid, or wet), and juxtaposes it toaither. Rather than being a distinct root in Empedocles’ cosmology, air heremore closely resembles water. Again, aither relates to the heavens, compress-ing the entire cosmos in a circle, and stands out as the more likely candidate

for the fourth root.This leaves only B100 to name air as the possible fourth root, which describes

the relationship of water to air in a clepsydra (a hollow wooden tube that usesair pressure to transfer water between containers) in order to explain the role

of aither in respiration (, 386). Here, aither is the focus of the passage, where it holds a critical position in the description of breathing, appearingfour times, while air appears only once. Air does not directly relate to respira-

tion, but only to the analogy of the clepsydra. In context, air and water serve asan analogy for a theory of respiration grounded in aither and blood. David

Furley notes the precise analogy to be as air is to water, so blood is to aither.

Burnet ( ) and Inwood ( , 106) prefer the equivalence of Titan and aither. See Burnet,

, 228–29n2: “In frag. 38, v. 3, which is not an enumeration of the elements, ὑγρὸς ἀήρ

(i.e. the misty lower air) is distinguished from Τιτὰω αἰθήρ (i.e. the bright blue sky) in the

traditional way.” Kingsley points out in “Notes on Air” that ὑγρὸς is an adjective modifyingἀήρ, and both should be taken with the preceding clause describing water. Kingsley reads

Titan as referencing sun and re, but Burnet’s reading of Τιτὰω αἰθήρ seems best. Contra

Burnet, this reading of the fragment would make it a list of the four roots.

Clement, who preserves the fragment, writes, “it is better to interpret it as the aither,

holding together and binding all things, as Empedocles says” (Inwood, , 106).


7/24

176

() –

Thus, air is related to water in the way that blood is related to aither: as a

mixture (air and blood) that includes the more pure kind (water and aither).In view of B38, this supports the reading that air is not a root, but a mixture

closely related to water. Aither, on the other hand, seems to be critical to bloodand respiration, and thus more integral to Empedoclean thought.

The scarcity and relative insignicance of instances of air when compared

to the abundant and profound uses of aither, together with the probability thatthe only list of the four roots to include air actually reads “aither,” calls forreconsidering the meaning of these terms in Empedocles. Other interpreta-tions of aither speak to its ambiguous role, such as those of Aëtius and Stobaeus, who consider it the equivalent of re. Accepting aither instead of air draws

new meaning out of the fragments, freeing it from the Aristotelian shacklesof traditional conceptions and pointing towards a more originary understand-ing of Empedoclean philosophy. Examining the debate regarding the divinenames of the four roots—it should be noted that Empedocles never callsthem elements—helps establish the disambiguation of the meaning of “aither”

and “air.”

See D. J. Furley, “Empedocles and the Clepsydra,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 77, no. 1(1957): 31–34. Also, consider N. B. Booth, “Empedocles’ Account of Breathing,” The Journal

of Hellenic Studies 80 (1960): 10–15. Because Empedocles maintains a plenum in Fragment

B13/F18, “there is no place in the totality that is empty or overowing,” air in the clepsydra

should not be actual void. The clepsydra’s essential relationship to water makes a mist or

invisible vapor a likely option. Burnet argues that Empedocles discovers air is a “thing” in

B100, and that this “was one of the most important discoveries in the history of science”

(, 229).

This follows from fragments such as B21, B98, B109, and B135, where aither is bright,

divine, or otherwise cast similarly to re, and may also be due to the similarity of aitherand re in Anaxagoras. See Burnet, , 267–69, for the contrasting meaning of air and

aither in Anaxagoras. He notes that air and aither are opposed as the rare, hot, light, and

dry to the dense, cold, heavy, and wet. See Clara Elizabeth Millerd, On The Interpretation

of Empedocles (hereafter ), 31–12n7, for citations of fragments B71, B 98, B109, and B115.9

as evidence that aither and re are distinct. Some recent commentators suggest aither

may describe a mixture between the elements. For aither as a mixture of re and air see

D. O’Brien, Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle (London: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 291–92.

See W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vols. 1 and 2, 263 (hereafter ), on

Empedocles anticipating Aristotle’s conception of aither as a fth element: “Empedoclesmay have assisted the emergence of the ‘fth element’, which when we meet it fully

developed in Aristotle is divine, the substance of the stars which are gods.” The regular

juxtaposition of aither with re, water, and earth in various lists of four cautions against

these views.


8/24

177

() –

2 The Four Roots Controversy

In fragment B6, Empedocles ofers his own opinion about the gods, providing

the most clear and direct evidence of four primary roots in his cosmology.

The four roots (ῥιζώµατα) of all things hear rst:Shining (ἀργὴς) Zeus, life-giving (φερέσβιος) Hera, Aidoneus,and Nestis, who by her tears moistens the mortal spring. (, 344)

This obscure passage results in 2500 years of conicting interpretations regard-ing the correspondence between these gods and the four Aristotelian elements

of re, water, earth, and air. Ῥιζώµατα means “root clumps,” as in the founda-tion of a tree. From the verb ῥιζοῦν, to cause to strike root, plant rmly, or tobe planted with trees, these roots bring life, water, and nutrients to all things

but also stand as sources of composition and structure for organic and inor-ganic unities. Empedocles adds love and strife as two other fundamental forcesthat combine and separate these roots throughout the eons.

The doxographical tradition on this fragment ofers two distinct alternativesin multiple preserved passages. The earliest discussion comes from Aëtius,

who ourished in 100 : “he calls the aither and the boiling ‘Zeus,’ the air ‘life-giving Hera,’ the earth ‘Aidoneus,’ and ‘Nestis’ and ‘the spring of mortals’ are, asit were, the seed and water” (Inwood, , 173). Rather than maintaining a fthelement or equating aither with air, Aëtius reads the similarity between aitherand re to indicate their identity, positing Zeus as both. By aligning Hera and

air, he demonstrates the distinction between it and aither on his reading; yethe also illuminates the diculty of reading aither as air due to the very difer-ent conceptions of the two found in the fragments. Aidoneus, a poetical formof Hades, represents earth, while Nestis, a Sicilian deity of the sea with ties to

Persephone, stands for water. While this reading seems basically correct, by

Wright, , 164; see 166–67 on the four roots.

See Millerd, , 30n3 for a thorough citation on extant references to B9. Philodemus

provides the earliest discussion around 60 If we accept substantial reconstruction,

he suggests, “Empedocles in his hymns says that Hera and Zeus are air and re” (Inwood,

, 174). This oldest and direct reading supports the view of Aëtius. No interpretations

other than these three are known to exist before the nineteenth century.

On Nestis in Empedocles, see Friedrich Nietzsche, The Pre-Platonic Philosophers, trans.Greg Whitlock (Chicago: University of Illinois, 2001), 116n49, hereafter ; Burnet, ,

229; William E. Leonard, The Fragments of Empedocles (Chicago: Open Court Publishing

Company: 1908), 68; Wright, , 166; Kingsley, , 348–58, and 375; and McKirahan,

, 257.


9/24

178

() –

equating it with re, Aëtius eliminates the possibility for a meaningful inter-

pretation of aither.By the third century an alternate reading surfaces. Hippolytus (220 )

and Diogenes Laertius (250 ) switch Hades and Hera. Hippolytus writes,“Fire is Zeus; the earth which brings the fruits needed for life is Hera; air is Aidoneus, because although we look through it at everything, it alone is not

seen; water is Nestis, for it alone is the bearer of nourishment for animals”(Inwood, , 174). The epithet “life-bringing (φερέσβιος)” requires Hera’s rootto have an integral role in all animate existence. Hippolytus nds the fruitbearing earth to best represent the force of life between the alternatives. Hades,then, as mysterious, dark, and unseen is associated with the invisible presence

of air. Nestis’ identication with water turns out to be the only consistent read-ing of the relationship between the four roots and the four elements among allinterpreters.

Around 440 , Johannes Stobaeus follows Aëtius in aligning Zeus withaither and re, and follows Laertius on the rest. Stobaeus nds air to be illumi-

nated by the sun and aither related to boiling, providing a second challenge to Aristotle that aither more resembles re than air. Empedocles’ description of“blazing (παµφανόωντι) aither” in B98, together with other terms reminiscentof re (B21, B109, and B135) warns against the identication of aither with airacross the centuries. The three latest readings identify Hades with air and Hera

with earth, while the most ancient interpretation from Aëtius links Hades toearth and Hera to air. Stobaeus provides a third variant by following Hippolytus,but identifying aither with re. Stobaeus also aligns with Aëtius against Aristotle in identifying aither with re rather than air. While none of these

interpreters hold aither as a root in its own right, this debate shows that thecharacteristics of Empedoclean aither do not clearly resemble air.

More recently, alternative readings have emerged. In the late nineteenth

century, Fridericus Knatz aligns Zeus with air and Hades with re, whichBurnet notes and supports. Building on the work of his previous articles,

Peter Kingsley advocates for aither instead of air, and follows the view that

See also, Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, trans. R. D. Hicks, vol. 2

(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), 391: “where by Zeus he means re, by Hera

earth, by Aidoneus air, and by Nestis water.”

Stobaeus defends his identication of Hades and air: “since it [air] has no light of its ownbut is illuminated by the sun” (Inwood, , 173).

Fridericus Knatz, “Empedoclea,” Schedae philogae Hermanno Usener a sodalibus Seminarii

Regii Bonnensis oblatae (Bonnae: F. Cohen, 1891): 1–9. See Burnet, , 229–30n3 for his

citation of Knatz.


10/24

179

() –

Hades is re in 1995’s Ancient Philosophy, Medicine and Magic. While the rela-

tionship between Hades and re does appeal to more Christian sensibilities,Empedocles lived during a time with no conception of Hades or the afterlife as

ery. Kingsley relies heavily on Empedocles’ references to Hephaestus as re,as well as fragment B51: “Many res burn below the ground,” and the presenceof Mt. Aetna and hot springs on Sicily. The fragments and testimonia provide

ample evidence that all of the roots are spread throughout Empedocles’universe, and there is no direct evidence depicting Hades as ery. I ultimatelydo not nd the evidence linking Hades and re compelling and therefore rejectit as implausible in what follows.

However, Kingsley’s work in uncovering the signicance of aither is pro-

found. He forcefully argues for the spuriousness of air in Fragment B78 andofers an interpretation of Empedocles grounded in a robust concept of aitherin place of air. Yet he never embarks on a precise investigation of the meaningof aither in the fragments but, instead, links re with Hades, aither with Zeus,and proceeds from there. This solution has little grounding in the ancient

doxographical tradition or the extant fragments. Kingsley’s scholarship isimpressive, but his ndings are inconclusive.

Two others reect on the signicance of aither more seriously. Nietzscheand Guthrie both follow Aëtius on the representation of the roots, but do notconate aither and re. Each considers the distinction between aither and air

meaningful without developing the signicance of this in their interpretationsof Empedoclean philosophy. After reporting Aëtius’ account of the four roots,Nietzsche proceeds, with little comment, to ofer an alternative reading. Here,aither, understood in relationship to the heavens, joins earth, water, and re,

with air entirely absent from the four-fold scheme.

Kingsley, , 14 (with reference to B52 that “many res burn below the ground”).Millerd argues against re as Hades because re is gleaming in Empedocles, not gloomy

and shadow-like as is Hades (30–33). For other arguments against Hades as re, see

Guthrie, 2: 144–45.

Kingsley, , 238–41. He attempts to link the Diogenes Laertius fragment to Theophrastus

through an Armenian fragment in order to attribute the reading that Hera is earth and

Hades air to Theophrastus. Aëtius as the most ancient is usually thought to be closest to

Theophrastus. In “Empedocles and His Interpreters,” Phronesis 40, no. 1 (1995): 109–15,

Jaap Manseld refutes this efort.

Consider fragments B22, B26, B35, B51, B52, B53, B56, B57, and testimonia A48, A49a, A60, A78.

Nietzsche quotes fragment B6 and curtly remarks, “Zeus’s re, Aidoneus’s earth, Hera’s air,

Nestis’s water” (, 116), following Aëtius. He immediately ofers a diferent presentation

of the four elements that lists alternative and metaphorical names for earth, re, water,


11/24

180

() –

He does not explicitly draw the connection, but Nietzsche’s work suggests a

potential union of Hera with aither. While not taking this step, Guthrie, too,draws signicant attention to the question of aither. He distinguishes two

kinds of aer in ancient Greek thought, a less pure lower cloud or mist, anda more pure substance of the upper heavens. In Empedocles he concludes,“[s]ometimes this word seems to mean air, and sometimes re” ( , 50),

thereby supporting both the Aristotelian and Aëtian conceptions. Ultimately,he accepts Aëtius’ view of the roots and nds that aither anticipates a divinefth element, as in Aristotle, without being developed as such in Empedocles( , 187).

Homer divides the world between Zeus, Poseidon, and Aidoneus, leaving

earth common to all. With a nod to this tradition, Empedocles introducesearth as a root by replacing Poseidon with Hera and Nestis. Thus he adds two female deities to his exclusive pantheon, allowing for the possibility that theroots be understood in terms of two couples. In all likelihood, the obscureSicilian water goddess Nestis is related to Persephone, Hades’ captured bride in

the underworld. In fact, one version of her abduction takes place on the slopes

and aither, but not air . “Along with these mythic designations, we are presented with:

1. πῦρ ἥλιος ἠλέκτωρ Ἥφαιστος [re of the sun = beaming sun = Hephaestus]; 2. αἰθὴροὐρανός [aither Ouranos, sky]; 3. γῆ χθὼν αἶα [Ge = earth = Gaia]; 4. ὕδωρ ὄµβρος πόντος

θάλασσα [water = rain/water = river = sea]” (, 117).

See Guthrie, 2: 145–46 and 187 on air, and 185n1, 262–63, and 315n4 on aither. The

following passages are signicant: “[air is] bright divine essence which in its purity

occupies . . . the outermost regions with re beneath it” ( 2: 187); “aer was simply

aither contaminated with grosser matter such as moisture. This had to be so for

Empedocles, in whose system there were only four pure elemental substances, and hence

when he speaks of aither he means this bright divine essence which in its purity

occupies . . . the outermost regions with re beneath it. . . . . In the terrestrial regions weexperience it as atmospheric air or in even more adulterated forms, but as one of the four

‘roots’ it might be less misleading to call it ‘ether’” (ibid.). Additionally he writes, “it is

essential to be aware that this is not the sublunary air of Aristotle. It is an element whose

main mass is more distant from the earth, and nearer the outer connes of the round

universe, than is the main mass of re” (ibid.). He nds the correspondence of the gods to

the roots to be, “a question is of little importance for Empedocles’ thought” (ibid., 146).

See also W. K. C. Guthrie, In the Beginning (London: Methuen & Co, 1957), hereafter :

42–43 (on air as Empedocles’ fourth element), 50, 59 (on aither in Pythagoras), and 118nn

9 and 10. Homer, Iliad , trans. A. T. Murray (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999): 15.187–93

and 20.56–65. In the latter passage, Aidoneus worries that above him the earth be split by

Poseidon to reveal his house (through an earthquake). As such, the Homeric Hades lives

below the earth.


12/24

181

() –

of Mt. Aetna. Cults of Demeter and Persephone were popular in Sicily, wor-

shiping the goddesses of agriculture and the underworld. This suggests a natu-ral pairing between Nestis and Hades, on the one hand, and Hera and Zeus, on

the other.Nestis is most clearly connected with water, and the tradition is strong in

equating Zeus and re. The bulk of the debate lies in whether Hades is earth

and Hera air, or vice versa. The oldest tradition—that of Aëtius—favors Hadesas earth. This makes good sense, as the god of the underworld is most con-nected with the earth in Empedocles’ time. This reasoning persuadesNietzsche, Burnet, and Guthrie. Yet the earth is also called φερέσβιος (“life-giving”) in Homer, supporting the later views of Hippolytus and Laertius.

However Hera is understood, she must be φερέσβιος (“life-giving”). Hippolytus views his Hera-earth as fruit bearing, while Aëtius’ camp must be persuaded bythe respiratory power of air. If we accept aither in place of air, the character ofthe inquiry changes. Which god best represents aither? Could Empedoclesconceive of aither as φερέσβιος? Aither is so much more than air that it often

gets conated with re. It may be neither moist nor transparent. This would weaken some of the interpretations linking Hera with earth by damaging theargument linking Hades with air.

If Aëtius’ identication of re and aither is rejected, Nietzsche and Guthriefollowed on Nestis as water, Hades as earth, and Zeus as re, and air no longer

a root, Hera remains to represent aither. This very simple solution, based upondenying Aristotle’s synonymy of air and aither, conceives of aither as resem-bling re rather than as being re. While distinct in name and function in thefragments, both are raried, shining, and bright roots. Likewise, earth and

water form a dense, heavy, and dark pair.

See Hesiod, Theogony, in Theogony, Works and Days, Shield , trans. Apostolos N. Athanassakis (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004): lines 767–74 and

912–14 on Hades and Persephone. See Pierre Grimal, The Dictionary of Classical Mythology

(Maiden, : Blackwell Publishers, 1998): 132 on the abduction.

In A History of Greek Philosophy from the Earliest Period to Socrates, trans. S. F. Alleyne

(London: Forgotten Books, 2013), 1: 484–85 (rst published 1881), Eduard Zeller cites Aelian

on Pythagoras maintaining that earthquakes were caused by the assemblies of the dead,

and Pythagoreans as holding strong connections with departed souls and the subterranean.

Burnet, , 229–30n3. Millerd contends that “life-bringing,” while appropriate to earth,

“is often used with other things, and would aptly describe air, especially since, inEmpedocles’ view, breath is so important in sustaining the life of man and other living

creatures” ( , 31).

Consider Fragment B48: “Earth (γαῖα) produces night by obstructing the light” (F44/B48)

(, 370); B94: “And black color arises from the shadow on the bottom of the river, and


13/24

182

() –

From this reading emerge two well-matched couples: Zeus and Hera (the

bright and rare), and Hades and Nestis (the dark and dense). Nestis and Hadesdeify the heavier roots of water and earth, just as Zeus and Hera comfortably

rule the heavens together as re and aither.This conclusion regarding the four roots has at least the two advantages that

the divine couples nd their most pleasing poetic matches and the most

ancient tradition regarding their relationship to the deities is upheld. The mostcompelling counter-argument is that removing the epithet φερέσβιος from itshistorical corollary of earth and associating it with aither breaks from histori-cal tradition. However, Empedoceles’ contemporary, Sophocles, casts Hades asbelow the earth, such as at Electra 462: “though he sleeps below, in Hades.” At

this point, a focused investigation of aither in Empedocles is required, in orderboth to understand it in its own right, and to see if any light can be shed on thefour roots controversy.

3 Αἰθήρ in Empedocles

The Greek-English Lexicon reveals a rather complete history of aither in ashort space. The word rst means “heaven” or “sky” in Homer, becomes “air” in

Empedocles, “re” in Anaxagoras, a fth element in Aristotle, and a divine ele-ment of the soul in Philostratus (turn of third century ). This story may notbe entirely accurate, as the inuence of Aristotle’s interpretation is singular inthe cases of Empedocles and Anaxagoras. Aristotle tells us Anaxagoras viewsaither as re, just as he nds Empedocles to equate aither with air. While the

question of Anaxagoras requires another investigation, we shall see that theuse of aither in Empedocles seems rarely to describe a vapor, mist, wind, cloud,

likewise is seen in hollow caverns” (, 396; original in Latin); and Theophrastus A69a,

“Empedocles also [says] concerning colors that white is composed of re, black of water”

(, 396).

Wright suggests that Hades and Nestis would “give a pointed contrast to the Olympian

couple” (, 166).

Sophocles, Electra, in Four Tragedies, trans. Peter Meineck and Paul Woodruf (Hackett:Indianapolis, 2007).

Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1996), 37, s.v. αἰθὴρ.

Aristotle , On The Heavens 270b24, in . See also Burnet, , 269n1.


14/24

183

() –

or invisible space. If anything, it more resembles the Homeric meaning of sky

or heaven and as such is consistent with the analysis of B38 above.Before beginning on the analysis of aither proper, two fragments likely

describe aither using other poetic designations. B21 lines 3–6 appear to list thefour roots:

sun, shining to sight and everywhere hot,immortal things which are soaked in heat and blazing beam,and rain, dark and chilling in everything,and from earth ow out intertwined and solid things. (, 356)

Earth, the hot sun as re, dark cold rain as water, and immortal blazing heat.The latter appears to describe a Homeric conception of aither. Similarly, B22line 2 contrasts, “beaming sun, earth, heaven, and sea,” leaving heaven as anallusion to either aither or air (, 356). If aither, it ts in nicely with theHomeric meaning. If air, it does not correspond to the use in fragments B38

and B100.Turning now to the nineteen instances of aither (in thirteen fragments),

connotations of heaven and blazing will emerge along with other traits. Wehave already examined B17, where aither may be a more authentic alternativeto air in line 18; B38, where aither seems equated with Titan and compresses

the whole into a sphere as the outer heavens; and B100, where aither seems toplay a critical role in respiration in conjunction with blood. The other ten frag-ments (B9, B37, B39, B54, B71, B98, B109, B111, B115, and B135) will now beconsidered.

Four fragments (B39, B54, B111, B135) work to demonstrate the prevalenceof aither in the universe. Β39 suggests there is much more aither than appearsto us.

if the depths of earth and plentiful aither [δαψιλὸς αἰθήρ] are unbounded

[ἀπείρονα],as the words coming vainly through the tongue of the mouthsof many are poured out, of those who have seen little of the totality.

(, 368)

On air as mist and aither as bright, shining sky in Homer and Hesiod, see Burnet, , 269;Guthrie, 1:466 and 2:185 and 262; and Charles H. Kahn, Anaximander and the Origins

of Greek Cosmology (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994): 136–46.

Millerd believes that fragment B21 (line 4) describes aither. She considers the distinction

between air and aither, but maintains the primacy of air (, 33).


15/24

184

() –

While this criticism of Xenophanes does not maintain aither as ἀπείρον, the

adjective δαψιλὸς (abundance and plenty) directly modies it. The criticism ofan innite universe in favor of Empedocles’ limited view does not contradict

the plentitude of aither within the nite cosmos. Although not limitless, thedepths of the earth are profound, and their contrast is not with the height ofthe heavens, but with the plentitude of aither, as if aither were everywhere. B54

conrms that aither exists below the ground, where it would seem least likelyto appear: “aither sank under the earth with long roots.” B111, lines 7–9 read,

and you shall produce from black rain timely droughtfor men, and you shall produce from summer drought

tree-nourishing streams, which dwell in aither. (, 404)

In this fragment, Empedocles boasts of great accomplishments, includingknowledge of some kind of irrigation. The idea that tree-nourishing(δενδρεόθρεπτα) streams dwell in aither could mean either that the streams

originate either on mountaintops or from underground springs, where aithermay be more prevalent, that aither is intermingled with the streams them-selves, allowing the water to bring nourishment, or that rains from the heavensbring aither to earth. While an exact conclusion is unclear, one thing can begarnered from this: that the ability of water to nourish plant-life requires some

relationship to aither. Finally, B135 characterizes aither as wide-ruling: “But what is lawful for all extends continuously; both through wide-ruling aither[αἰθέρος ἠωεκέως τέταται] and through vast sunlight.” This characterizationsuggests that aither constitutes much of the heavens, as suggested by the

Homeric meaning and fragments such as B38.Too long to be considered in full, Fragment B115 describes exile of gods to

become all varieties of mortal creatures because of crimes committed against

the innocent. This fall of daimones from divine to mortal existence occurs as atransmigration through the elements:

For mighty (µένος) aither (αἰθέριον) drives him into sea,sea spews him onto the surface of the earth, and earth to the raysof the shining sun, who casts him into the whirls of aither[ὁ δ αἰθέρος ἔµβαλε δίναις]. (lines 9–11)

As in B38, Empedocles seems to use the sun as an image for re. Thus, themiddle of this sentence describes a motion from water to earth to re. This

See Graham, , 423.


16/24

185

() –

transformation occurs from and to aither, the only root to be mentioned twice

in this passage. In fact, “αἰθέριον” is the rst word of the sentence and the geni-tive noun of the nal clause. This poetic signicance highlights aither in this

passage, a term thought insignicant to Empedocles for so long, by showing itscentral position in his cosmology.

Two words describe aither in B38: rst, µένος; second, δίναις. The adjective

µένος means mighty or forceful. Yet it also means passion of the soul, strength,or erceness in animals, intention or purpose, and life, being a synonym forψυχή at Iliad 5.296 (which means “life” in Homer). All of these meanings areHomeric and familiar to Empedocles, and all of them suggest a relationshipbetween aither and life. The word’s connotations suggest a special force and

power for aither among the roots, one integrally involved in the erceness, pas-sion, and purposes of living beings. An important topic in early Greek cosmol-ogy, δίνη is a whirl of wind or water. It has vaguely to do with the generation ofthe cosmos from an originary moment, in Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Leucippus,and perhaps as far back as Anaximander and Anaximenes. Associating δίνη

with aither bestows a mysterious signicance to this element with respect tothe creation of the multifarious cosmos populated by gods and mortals.Overall, its symmetrical placement in this description of transmigrationthrough the roots, together with the characterizations of µένος and δίναις,reveals aither as holding a meaningful place in the great cosmic cycles of birth

and death. A second fragment attributes a crucial role to aither in the transmigration of

souls. B9 cryptically places aither at the heart of mortal birth.

when [ὅτε µὲν] as these things are mixed together they come to aither ina man [φῶτα],

or in the race of wild beasts or of bushes

or birds, then [τότε µὲν] it birth [γενέσθαι]and when they are separated, this [τὸ δ] in turn they call pitiful fate;

they do speak rightly, but I myself concur in the custom. (, 348)

In consideration of Daniel W. Graham’s “Symmetry in the Cosmic Cycle,” The ClassicalQuarterly 38, no. 2 (1988): 297–312, the positioning of aither at the beginning and end of

this cycle of transformation holds special signicance.

Burnet, , 61–62, and 61n3; 237–40 on Empedocles; 269 on Anaxagoras; 344–46 on

Leucippus.


17/24

186

() –

Empedocles describes birth (γενέσθαι) consistently with the Parmenidean

denial of coming to be: nothing new enters or leaves reality. The passagecould mean that when aither in some way enters a mixture (line 1), a living

being (a bird, beast, human, or plant) is animated. When the mixture sepa-rates and aither departs, that is death (line 3). In truth, this language misleads,as no new soul comes into or leaves the world. In this fragment, aither can be

interpreted to explain how life enters a body, playing the role soon to be ful-lled by an immaterial Platonic or Aristotelian soul. Such an embodied, aithe-rial soul could transmigrate from body to body by becoming a materialcomponent of diferent mixtures, either in whole or in part.

Fragments B71 and B98 further develop the question of aither in

Empedoclean mixtures, with each depicting the combination of the roots intomore complex forms. B71 describes how the mixture of the four roots, withaither in place of air and sun standing for re, gives rise to living creaturesthrough the work of Aphrodite, or love.

If your belief in these things is at all lacking,how from the mingling of water, earth, aither, and sunarose the forms and colors of mortal things [χροῖά τε θνητῶν],all that now come to be, compounded by Aphrodite. (, 394)

Here, this process of producing mortal things—χροῖά τε θνητῶν, where χροιάmeans skin, and living bodies with skin, and θνητός means liable to death andmortal—should be understood as the generation of living things. The frag-ment shows all four roots to be involved, without attributing a special place to

any of them. The work of combining belongs to Aphrodite. B98 portrays a verysimilar situation.

Earth met with these in most equal measure, with Hephaestus, rain, and blazing [παµφανόωντι] aither,

dropping anchor in the perfect harbors of Cypris,

As in fragments B11 and B12. See Patricia Curd, “The Metaphysics of Physics: Mixture and

Separation in Empedocles and Anaxagoras,” Presocratic Philosophy: Essays in Honour of

Alexander Mourelatos,” ed. Victor Caston and Daniel W. Graham (Burlington: Ashgate

Publishing Company, 2002), 139–58, esp. 146–53. For single guillemets in B9 as signifyingtextual alteration of the original Greek manuscript because of textual corruption, see

, 348.

The grammar supports this reading: ὅτι µὲν in line 1 with τότε µὲν in line 3, and these with

τὸ δ in line 4.


18/24

187

() –

either a little greater or less among more parts,

and from them came [ἔγεντο] blood and other kinds of esh [σαρκός].(, 380)

Diferent organic materials arise from the blending of the four elements in dif-ferent, but precise, ratios. Again, we have the apparent poetic listing of the four

roots, with Earth joining Hephaestus as re, rain for water, and aither (describedas blazing, παµφανόωντι), as well as great emphasis placed on love, here Cypris,in afecting mixtures. In particular, the fragment mentions the generation ofblood and other kinds of esh. As in B71, Empedocles is concerned with livingbeings: there, whole creatures; here, particular tissues and organs. Two addi-

tional points may be gathered from B98. First, as παµφανόωντι, aither is blazing,bright, shining, or beaming, as in a sword brandished in the sunlight. This moreresembles a divine, heavenly aither than a mist-like principle of air. Second,the formation of blood recalls the unique relationship between aither andblood developed in the clepsydra analogy. At minimum, the passage shows

that all the roots, including aither are relevant to the production of blood, socentral to life.

As we are in part investigating a possible relationship between aither andlife in Empedocles, it is appropriate to briey consider the connection betweenlove and life. The above two fragments show love and each of the four roots as

operative in the generation of living things and their parts. Interpreters occa-sionally defend love as the principle of life for Empedocles, in part based onthe role of Cypris and Aphrodite above. With the spotlight now on aither, itsabsence in fragment B96, is perhaps more conspicuous. It describes the forma-

tion of bone from two parts earth, two parts water, and four parts re:

Pleasant earth in well-wrought crucibles

got two parts of glittering Nestis, out of its eight parts,and four from Hephaestus; and white bones were produced,

joined by the marvelous glue of Harmony. (, 380)

Harmony likely describes the combinatory motion of love, so only aither ismissing in the production of the skeleton. Plato’s Phaedo 80c–d points out that

Also consider B105, which claims thought is blood around the heart (, 398).

See Simon Trepanier, “Empedocles on the Ultimate Symmetry of the World,” Oxford

Studies in Ancient Philosophy 24 (2003): 1–57, for view that love is not the force of life (3);

Kahn’s , 21 and 27; and Guthrie, 2: 265.


19/24

188

() –

the bones last long after life has left the body. They are the most inorganic of

the organic substances, and for Empedocles do not include aither in their com-position. This suggests that, upon death, the eshy parts of the body that do

include aither and require its constant inux through respiration quickly decayupon its departure. Bone, of which aither is not a component, persists alone,thereby explaining the cause of skeletal remains. While love is required to

combine, without aither there may be no life in Empedoclean thought.The two remaining fragments support a number of points previously devel-

oped. B37 reads, “Earth increases its own body [αὔξει δὲ χθὼν µὲν σφέτεροωδέµας], aither increases aither [αἰθέρα δ αἰθήρ].” Above, B39 compared thedepths of the earth and the abundance of aither in their limitlessness. Now,

aither and earth are again paired, insofar as they increase themselves, likely inthe way characteristic of biological growth (αὔξησις). Now, we have seen thatthe four roots grow together in generation of a living body and its parts, so thepairing of earth and aither may represent all four. Alternatively, earth (χθὼν)is said to increase its own body (δέµας). ∆έµας means the body, especially the

living body and its frame. As earth increases its own living body so does aitherincrease itself as aither. That is, as earth is to the living body, so aither is to itself.By this analogy, earth may or may not live, but aither must be essentially alive.If, for Empedocles, aither designates some sort of life force or material soul, it would make sense for it to grow in the way characteristic of organic bodies.

B109 lends credence to the view that aither rather than air is the fourth root,supporting the alternative manuscripts of B17.

By earth we behold earth, by water water,

by aither divine [δῖον] aither, but by re blinding reby afection afection, strife by dreadful strife. (, 398)

Plato, Phaedo, ed. John Burnet (London: Oxford University Press, 1911). Also consider

Empedocles, B62: “Come, now, how of men and of much-lamenting women; distinguishing

re brought up shoots at night; learn from these words, for it is not a pointless or

unenlightening tale; whole-natured kinds rst rose up from earth; having a portion of

both water and heat; re sent them up in its desire to reach its like; forms which did not

yet manifest any pleasant gure of limbs; nor voice, nor organ of speech native to men”

(, 384). And Empedocles, B73: “As Cypris then, when she moistened earth in rain;busily produced forms and gave it to swift re to solidify” ( , 394). In both of these

fragments, love combines without the clear presence of aither.

So Aristotle interprets it at 331b1, in , the fragments’ origin.

Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 378, s.v. δέµας.


20/24

189

() –

In this fragment generally understood as concerned with human perception,

γαῖα, ὕδωρ, αἰθήρα, and πῦρ are clearly listed as the four roots. Along with loveand strife, each is implicated in a theory of perception of like by like. Other

than emphasizing aither as the fourth root, this passage also describes it asδῖον, meaning divine or heavenly and is used to describe noble men, women,gods, goddesses, animals, and nature. Again, the adjective modifying aither

rings with connotations of power and life.In The Pre-Platonic Philosophers, Nietzsche writes, “Empedocles’ entire

pathos comes back to this point, that all living things are one; in this respect thegods, human beings, and animals are one” ( , 109). The many references tothe transmigration of souls in Empedocles ofer powerful evidence for this

claim. The theory of respiration in B100 involves the exchange of aitherbetween the body and the environment, suggesting an animate individualfeeding itself with a life-giving substance. The prevalence of aither through-out the world, its life-bearing, divine, and heavenly attributes, and the pos-sibility that inorganic mixtures lack aither while living beings always contain

it, all further support this Nietzschean thesis regarding the unity of life inEmpedoclean philosophy. Ultimately, aither could provide a unied, ani-mate, and material force with the capacity to account for Empedocles’method of reincarnation and the ethical obligation he maintains towards allother living things.

4 Conclusion

Heidegger has taught the diculty of escaping history and glimpsing the fac-ticity appropriate to an ancient philosophical system. Cherniss has warnedagainst Aristotle’s propensity to distort the truth regarding his predecessors.

To reconstruct the facticity of Empedocles’ worldview may lie beyond ourreach, but we can certainly sift through later distortions in order to uncover

a more authentic perspective. In the rst instance, the fragments bear out very little resemblance between aither and either Empedoclean or Aristotelianair. Aither names a glorious and mysterious stuf, integral to shining beauty,organic animation, and the structure of the heavens. A summary of the

Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 434–35, s.v. δῖον. Harold Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy (Baltimore, The Johns

Hopkins Press, 1935). See McDiarmid, “Theophrastus on the Presocratic Causes,” ( ,

esp. 209–10) for support of Cherniss; and W. K. C. Guthrie, “Aristotle as Historian,” ( ,

239–54) for the opposing view.


21/24

190

() –

fragments examined above reveals aither as being characterized in terms of

Titan, immortality, blazing (παµφανόωντι) bright heat, heaven, unbounded(ἀπείρονα) plentitude (δαψιλὸς), wide-ruling (ἠωεκέως τέταται), mighty and liv-

ing (µένος), cosmos-generating whirlpools (δίναις), and divine (δῖον). Further,several fragments bestow a special relationship to animate processes uponaither. It is said to be tree-nourishing and self-growing (αὔξει); and nally, frag-

ments B9, B71, and B98 implicate aither in the generation of organic mixtures.Two preliminary points may be gained from this survey of aither in

Empedocles. First, aither bears little resemblance to air, either the mist-like airrelated to water in fragments B38 and B100, or the Aristotelian air that is hotand wet. In fact, there is no association of wetness with aither, which is instead

hot, bright, and blazing. Contra Aristotle, Empedoclean aither surely is not thegaseous matter most akin to water vapor. It is shining and bright and more akinto re than to water or air. If the four roots are to be paired according to thesimilarity of their tangible qualities, bright and hot aither and re belongtogether, as do the cold and dark water and earth. Additionally, the fragments

suggest some relationship between aither and life, ofering some supportthat Hera’s epithet of “φερέσβιος” may signify aither in Empedocles’ uniquecosmology.

Returning to the question of the four roots, it is true that an authoritativeinterpretation lies beyond reach due to the limitations of surviving fragments.

However, the view that life-giving Hera could describe aither has found signi-cant support. On this view, the goddess Hera inhabits the heavens with herhusband, and the queen of the gods becomes what we could efectively call amaterial soul: a single root, mixed throughout the universe, which brings life

by comingling with the other elements. The exchange of aither in B100 wouldexplain how life transmigrates and sustains itself, and how the entire worldcan be Nietzsche’s single living thing.

If Hera correctly represents the root of aither, that is, if aither really isφερέσβιος in addition to δῖον, exhibiting µένος, and related to αὔξησις, it becomes

the spark of life that permeates Empedocles’ cosmos. Nothing like air, and inno way consuming or destructive like re, aither would provide a materialfoundation for life, and an alternative to love as the source of this power. Whileφερέσβιος has been applied to the earth before Empedocles, Hades’ realm isalso understood as the underworld. In addition to the earth, χθὼν occasionally

refers to the underworld. Maintaining either Hades or Hera as earth nds some

diculty, but upholding Hera as aither grounds a consistent interpretation ofthis root in the fragments.

Rejecting Aristotle’s interpretation of aither and air as synonyms opens newpossibilities for Empedoclean philosophy. Whether or not Empedocles was the


22/24

191

() –

rst to list earth, he may not have precisely pregured his successor. Aither

bears little resemblance to Aristotelian air. Whether motivated by intention,misreading, or disinterest, Aristotle’s historical methodology fosters interpre-

tations of Empedocles that originate from Aristotle’s own worldview. By con-ceiving of the roots as divine, they become far more signicant to Empedocleanphilosophy than they are for Aristotle, who understands the four material ele-

ments entirely in terms of the pairs of primary material contrarieties.Much is made of Aristotle’s penchant for the distortion of his predecessors

to serve the interests of his own philosophical system. Metaphysics Αʼs geneal-ogy happily nds Empedocles to be the rst to assert the four elements, while Aristotle reserves a special use for aither as a fth element that composes the

bodies of eternal heavenly substances. Perhaps Aristotle minimizes the dis-tinctions between Empedocles’ roots because he wants to understand all mat-ter more generally as potentiality. In Physics Α, he even suggests Empedocles views the four material elements as a single principle, so that together withlove and strife there are three principles. However, this obscures the mean-

ingful diferences and complex functions of the four roots. Finally, Aristotlemaintains an immaterial conception of the soul. His account of unqualiedgeneration, or birth, involves immaterial form coming to be through a persist-ing material substratum. Aither, as conceived, provides an alternative to thegeneration of life through complex change. By proposing a single element that

brings life to all things with which it mixes, Empedocles holds an alternativethat could render Aristotle’s account unnecessary. This could pose a danger-ous objection that Aristotle may have preferred not to foster.

Such speculation on Aristotle’s motivations deserves more careful treat-

ment in the future. For now, suce it to say that by accommodatingEmpedoclean philosophy to his own, Aristotle’s account is radically diferentfrom the worldview of his predecessor. By providing an alternative to the con-

ception of the soul favored by Aristotle, this fourth root explains the phenom-ena of life without reference to immaterial substance or form. Could B37 be

Empedocles’ account of the growth of a material body and material soul?

Burnet (, 231n2) notes that Aristotle twice criticizes Empedocles for treating his four

as only two, at Metaphysics Α.4 985a31, in , and Β.3 330b19.

Consider Plutarch’s comments on B9 in Reply to Colotes in regard to this point: “he is not

getting rid of coming-into-being, but only coming-into-being from what is not, nor gettingrid of destruction, but only utter destruction, i.e. destruction into what is not” (Inwood,

, 95). On the contrary, Aristotle himself dismisses this reading: “Empedocles regarded

the soul as being composed of all the elements and each of these as being a soul”

( De Anima 404b11–12).


23/24

192

() –

Finally, consider how taking aither as a beaming, life-giving root harmonizes

with the words of Hölderlin’s “Empedocles”:

And every day those who were contented drank From Heaven’s springs,Seeded with light and sparks of life,

Flowering out of the aether.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Daniel W. Graham and the participants at 2012 for their comments.

Abbreviations

Peter Kingsley. Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and the

Pythagorean Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

The Complete Works of Aristotle. Edited by Jonathan Barnes. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1984.

M. R. Wright. Empedocles: the Extant Fragments. Indianapolis: Hackett

Publishing Company, 1995.

John Burnet. Early Greek Philosophy. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1948.

Peter Kingsley, “Empedocles and His Interpreters: The Four-Element

Doxography,” Phronesis 39, no. 3 (1994): 235–54.

Aristotle. On Generation and Corruption. In The Complete Works of Aristotle.

W. K. C. Guthrie. A History of Greek Philosophy, vols. 1 and 2. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Clara Elizabeth Millerd, On the Interpretation of Empedocles. New York:

Garland Publishing, 1980.

W. K. C. Guthrie. In the Beginning. London: Methuen & Co, 1957.

Martin Heidegger, “Phenomenological Interpretations with Respect to

Aristotle: Indication of the Hermeneutical Situation,” Man and World 25

(1992): 355–93.

Hölderlin, “The Death of Empedocles,” in Dennis J. Schmidt, On Germans and Other

Greeks: Tragedy and Ethical Life (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001): 173–90,

here 179; see also 183 on aither.


24/24

193

Richard D. McKirahan. Philosophy Before Socrates. Indianapolis: Hackett

Publishing Company, 2010.

Brad Inwood. The Poem of Empedocles. Toronto: University of Toronto

Press, 2001. Friedrich Nietzsche. The Pre-Platonic Philosophers. Translated by Greg

Whitlock. Chicago: University of Illinois, 2001.

Charles H. Kahn. “Religion and Natural Philosophy in Empedocles’

Doctrine of the Soul,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 42 (1960): 3–35,

esp. 9–15.

Studies in Presocratic Philosophy, ed. David J. Furley and Reginald E. Allen,

vol. 1 (New York: Humanities Press, 1970), 178–238.

Daniel W. Graham, The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy, Part and Part .New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Page numbers are consecu-

tive across the two volumes.

Shaw Aither and the Four Roots in Empedocles

Documents

Transcript of Shaw Aither and the Four Roots in Empedocles