NEW FRAGMENTS OF GREEK PHILOSOPHERS

Author(s): Franz Altheim and Ruth Stiehl

Source: East and West, Vol. 12, No. 1 (March 1961), pp. 3-18
Published by: Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29754354 .
Accessed: 23/02/2015 00:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to East and West.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEW

OF

FRAGMENTS
PHILOSOPHERS

GREEK

I: Empedoci.es,

Democritus,

in Arabic

Theophrastus

m?bad

1.

and

renounced
Byzantium and Sasanian Iran, perennial warriors
and (as it seemed)
enemies, were not
implacable
of the opponent.
insensible toward the merits

Like all rivals, they knew how to learn from each

from
borrowed
other. Maurikios
and Herakleios
and tac?
the eastern neighbour cavalry weapons
autho?
and baronial fiefs, military
tics, military
from which all the
rity in the border provinces,
later arose. On the other side,
theme organization
I An?sarv?n
had
earlier Khusr?
half-a-century
revenue

of Diocletian
organization
revenue
hitherto
A
and his
public
unheard of, and not even approached
by Byzan?
to renew their
the Sasanians
tium, enabled
imitated

the

successors.

and against their neigh?

struggle against Rome,
bours in general, with an intensity unknown before.
Even more surprising and, as will be shown,
more important was a borrowing of another kind.

Sasanian
literary and religious life of Late
almost exclusively by a
seemed determined
works
that are unrivalled
series of Zoroastrian

The

Iran

in their aridity and lack of spiritual

content;
but now Iran once more stood forth as a meeting
of religions

point
the grand epoch
ten, the creation

and

philosophies.
was
of Manicheism
of the Talmud

was

Of

course,

long forgot?
in
concluded

yet a new approach was shap?

ing at the beginning of the 6th century.
When we began the present investigation, we
its essentials.

could

not

terns would
of Mazdak's

And

that the neo-Platonic

pat?
anticipate
the background
stand out against
thought (*). It became clear that the

translation.

commentator
the

of

traditional

the Avesta

dualism.

Ahriman

had
or

(from the Manichaean

point of view) the Prince
of Darkness
found no counterpart;
the Supreme
was
alone
in
world (2).
celestial
Iyord
the
present
was
He
reached
of grade
through a sequence
that led from light and its spiritual aspects by
way of thought and action and of the satisfaction
of life necessities
down to their material
procu?
can
rement.
be proved to go back to Neo
This

and the coincidence was carried on

Platonicism;
in the solar interpretation of sovereignty and the
symbolism connected with it.
tried to compare Ma
Already A. Christensen
zdak's

grade order with that of the late Sasanian

feudal state (3). We, on our side, put forward the
I An?sarv?n
in his reor?
suggestion that Khusr?

the
of the state took into account
ganization
and
orders
of
his
adversary.
grade
predecessor
The late Sasanian
feudal state would then be an
imitation of what Mazdak
taught and
course
in
the
of
with
all
the mani?
heaven;
planned
of
fold differences that separated
the proclaimer
of this
the Kingdom
of Iyight from the mighty
earthly

earth

(4).

suggestion was later confirmed. Not only

too had made him?
I An?sarv?n
Khusr?
Mazdak,
with Neo-Platonic
self acquainted
thought. Mo?
re than that, the king was keen to appear as a
This

of the Greek sort (5).

philosopher
In the first half of the 12th century Muham?
mad

an

worked

as-Sahrast?nl

rial into his Kit?b

al-milal

not only the great

enormous

wa-n-nihal.

teachers

of Islam,

mate?

He

quoted
their sects
3

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

interest extended
and philosophical
schools.
His
and Manichaeans,
Buddhists
also to Zoroastrians
All
and Mazdakites.
and Christians,
Sabeans
in
their systems were described by as-?ahrast?ni
the scolastic language of Islamic dogmatics
and
order.
brought into some sort of perspicuous
on the Greek

could not
A volume
philosophers
From an external point of view, it
be missing.
the earliest of the pre-Socra
begins with Thales,
to the latest period, i. e. to
down
and
tics,
goes
school.
the last great thinkers of the Neo-Platonic
are
and description
Choice, knowledge
heteroge?
on his
was dependent
neous, since as-Sahrast?ni
various authorities and possessed no knowledge of
the Greek

canon

originals.
of seven

stands

out

in

philosophers
of the Greek philosophy
general body
(6);
Men.
calls them the seven Wise
as-Sahrast?ni
Of course they have nothing to do with those
the

seven Wise

the history of Greek

Men,
"
to
used
They are
formerly
thought
pil?
begin.
the series begins with Thales
lars of wisdom'';

and

with whom

leads

Anaximenes,
Anaxagoras,
to
down
and
Socrates
Empedocles,
through

Pythagoras,
Plato.
The
Aristoteles

latter

is

not

closes

the

canon,

in which

included.

It is hardly thinkable that as-Sahrast?ni

him?
was
It
self should have
choice.
this,
operated
on
canon
in
the
itself
and
him;
already
imposed
first centuries
gives a hint to this effect. The

A.D.

to
themselves,
the compilation

busied

an

ever-increasing
of canons of the

degree, with
and of their
ancient poets, orators, philosophers
An epoch that was no longer able or
works.
to deal with
increased
the enormously
willing
mass of Greek literature, felt the need of a discri?
a

In this, the number

choice.

minating

seven played

role.

great

canon

laid down by
of seven philosophers,
well
known
is
Porphyry,
particularly
(7). This
a
of Plo
friend
and
Neo-Platonic
thinker,
pupil
one
of the most learned and fertile writers
tinus,
of his time, lived in the late 3rd century. We
The

know

also

that
Its

Plato

canon

Porpyry's
author dealt with

ended

with

it in his great
all in his four

(8).
chronological work, but above
volumes History of Philosophy, which is lost ex?
these remnants
cept for a few fragments. But
some
allow us to establish
in as-Sah
hints
(and
rast?ni confirm this) that the section on the se?
ven Wise
ry's

Men

represents

an excerpt

from Porphy?

work.

are preserved
also by
excerpts
1-Waf?' al-Mubassir
author, Ab?
(middle of the nth century) (9). Of course neither
he nor as-Sahrast?ni
go back to the Greek ori?
In both cases the mediate
ginal of Porphyry.
Some

another

such

Arab

source

seems

to have

existence

Their

been

is known

a Syriac translation.
from the Fihrist,
that

of the book market

of
catalogue
a
was
which
connoisseur
by
compiled
Baghdad,
and dealer toward the end of the 10th century.

magnificent

The

well-informed

lists thousands
author, who
get hold only of the fourth

of titles, could be
book of the Syriac translations of the history of
It seems that the work was
philosophy
(10).
very rare and was no longer included
stock of the market.

in the current

It is, therefore, a priori unlikely that the Syriac

version of Porphyry's book was a product of the
the Abbasids.
great translating
activity under

Hunain, who represents the crown and complet?

ion of the translator
school of the 9th century,
a
was
Christian and came from Hira, the former
cultural centre of the lower Euphrat
country. He

translated
Greek
mostly
and these were translated

originals
into Arabic

into Syriac,
by his sons

as
But Hunain
is not mentioned
pupils.
We must
translator of the History of Philosophy.
look elsewhere.
and

Christians had fled from the Byzan?

Nestorian
to the enemy country nearby,
tine persecutions
Iran.
As
of the orthodox
Sasanian
opponents
allowed to
imperial church, they were received,
set up

an

of their own, and given

organization
to
comunities
Nestorian
permission
proselitize.
as
as
to
far
far
the
Siberia
Southern
East,
spread

a
fertile
they developed
It
translating activity from Greek into Syriac.
concerned mostly
Christian
literature, but also
to Aristoteles's
famous Introduction
Porphyry's
a
and reach?
school
book
logical works,
recognized
was
at
translated
that
time.
Of cour?
ing manual,
and

China.

Besides,

was
of Philosophy
se, the fact that the History
included was
unconnected
with both
religious
and teaching activity.
a
I An?sarv?n,
It so happened
that Khusr?
of royal claims, the killer
upholder
an
and
enemy of East Rome, pitiless
to all lamentations,
by a freak of des?

high-handed
of Mazdak
and deaf

an

tendency
equally unconditional
a
His
admirers
philosophy
(n).
of Plato and Aristo?
scribed to him a knowledge
teles down to the last subtleties; he was said to
tiny possessed
toward Greek

have

read

difficult
and understood
the most
As
and Parmenides.
such as Timaeus

dialogues,
a matter of fact, the king gave hospitality
to the
after
who had become
homeless
Neo-Platonics
in 529; he kept this
protecting hand upon them even when they tur?
and
ned their backs upon him in disappointment
to return home.
wished
the closing

of their school

In neighbouring
where
Byzantium,
this philosophical
hated
anyway,

was

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Khusr?
ambition

met

with

said

the most

spiteful mockery.
fallen into the clutches

to have

philosophers;
barian
could

it was

also maintained

never

draw

He

was

of half

that a bar?
the

the noble

style,
factual precision of Attic speech from translations
in an uncultivated
language
(meaning Middle
was an influence
(12). And yet Khusr?
Persian)
that was

felt.

We

works

know

contemporary
content that are dedicated to him
of philosophical
or were composed
at his suggestion.
A Nesto

the Persian,
for the king
rian, Paulus
compiled
an introduction
to logic in Syriac, which
has
come down to us (13). We know, through one of
the Neo-Platonics
living at his court, on what
ruler
The
the
liked to dispute (14).
subjects

contemporary preface to the highly praised work

Kalila
efforts
wa-Dimna
alludes to philosophical
of the same kind (15).
same attitude

The

comes

to the fore every whe?

at the
Philosophical
thought, as understood
court of An?sarv?n,
further ado
turned without
of metaphysics:
upon the ultimate questions
god,
re.

and elements, creation and end

primary matter
of the world.
in order
This was not, however,
a
to achieve
to
but
solutions,
merely
display
tried to justify
They
supercilious
scepticism.
their own position
the various
by comparing
partly opposite solutions that had been
to those problems.
the philosophers
A

given by

like Porphyry's
history of philosophy
met the requirements of this trend. Not only it
to the attention of the philosophers
submitted
the same kind of questions, but it represented a
book

sort of inventory of the solutions put forward,

for this scep?
which afforded a welcome material
ticism. All this led to the Syriac translation
of

Porphyry's work; it remains unknown whether

Middle
Persian
version was
also undertaken.

a large
obscurities,
quantity of misunderstandings,
and of mistranslations
deriving therefrom.

can no lon?
translation
Today Haarbr?cker's
we
be
After
utilized.
the problem
have
solved
ger
of the sources of our section, it goes without saying
that the passages
under examination have every
to be translated
anew.
and
interpreted
further question, what can the excerpt from
work
teach us on the pre-Socratic
Porphyry's
must
remain
for the present without
philosophy,
even an attempt at an answer;
it would widely
time

The

The follow?
overstep the limits of our enquiry.
discussion
limited
to
is
the
section
dedicated
ing
to Empedocles.
It begins,
in accordance

with

with
the creator
as-Sahrast?ni,
element.
Then follows reason as

the

scheme

and

the

of
first
due

something
of the
creator;
lastly the composition
out
elements
of
love
and
primary
struggle
[&Ma)
no novelty to us.
(Nsixog) (16). All this means"
But then it goes on to say:
The teaching (kal?m)
of Empedocles
has, however, yet another start
(mas?q) ". And here we meet with
something
to

the

which was not yet there: a theory

"
He
said that the growing soul

of the

soul.

is the bark

(qisr) (17) of the animal

soul the bark of the

(18) soul, and the animal

logical soul (19), and the
logical soul the bark of the rational soul (20). And
everything inferior is the bark to what is superior,
and what is superior is its pith (lubb). And some?
times he

and pith the terms

the
posits
growing soul as
latter as the
and
the
soul,
body
so
of
the
till
and
he
reaches the
on,
former,
spirit
"
and

for bark

employs

spirit; he
for the animal

body

Reason

(21)'.

of four souls.
recognize here a gradation
The two superior ones, the logical and the rational
soul, belong to man; the third one to the animals.
Thus, we shall attribute the growing soul to the
We

plants, and indeed it is termed as such later on (22).

The passage here translated
is the only statement

2.

of as-Sahrast?ni

on

As-Sahrast?ni's
philosophers
vant
article

the

Greek

explanations
rele?
The
enjoy no high repute.
ca?
of the Encyclopaedia
of Islam

their use.
Classical
scholars did
against
not concern themselves with as-Sahrast?ni,
with
one exception which will be discussed
later. This
behaviour was understandable,
since it had not

utions

shown up to now that Porphyry

lies as the
bottom of the Arab text. An even greater ob?
of
stacle wras represented
by the translation
been

Th. Haarbr?cker.
it may
was

have

been

in 1850-51,
it appeared
a meritorious
But
it
work.

When

insufficient even

not

for those times,

only
it did not give access to the contents of
it contained
as-Sahrast?ni's
book, but because

because

is quoted
which
(through the
of Th. Haarbr?cker)
in Diels-Kranz's
edition of the pre-Socratics
(23),where it is com?
"
Because
I became
already
pared with fr. 117:
once a boy, a girl, a plant, a man, and a dumb
translation

fish that rises from the waves ". The comparison

is justified through the assertion that the specu?
"
"
"
are
lations of the
Arabs
very fanciful ",
"
we
a core
case
in
but that
have
this particular

of truth, viz. the gradation:

plant, animal, man,
we
answer
To
that as-Sahrast?ni
this
may
god".
was no Arab, but a Persian;
that he was born in
Khor?s?n
that

and studied

it still remains

ulations

are

fanciful.

fr. 117 deals with

in Jurj?niya and Nis?p?r;

seen whether his spec?
The decisive point is that

to be

the entrance

of the soul in cer

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

tain bodies, while as-Sahrastam

speaks of a suc?
the?
cession of souls as such. The two passages,

Netxog
before

to do directly with each

refore, have nothing
same
the
but
the
show
other,
gradation, because
to the vovg, i.e.
rational soul would correspond
to God, and the logical soul to man. U. v. Wila

Not

mowitz
But
points
?
souls

(24)has cited fr. 127 in the same connection.

P. Moraux
is this really Empedocles?
out that the distinction between the three

d'QSTiriKrj or yvxixrj ipv%rj of the plants,

alcr&rjTixri or ^oSCm] ^vyr\ of the animals,
Xoyixf]
?
man
as
as
of
well
that
the
the
theory
ipvxrj
in the upper ones, are
lower forms are contained

Aristotelian.
form a

The Neoplatonics
voy\xiky\ipvyr\. This
but

Empedocles,

Porphyry.

as supreme
therefore, not

added

is,
The latter

felt im?

theory of the /btsxevocojudxco

pelled by Empedocles's
oig to discover in him the theory of the four souls.
The circumstances
in another case are similar.
The conception
and body-spirit,
of bark-pith
in which bark and body enclose pith or spirit, is
known to be Empedoclean
126 speaks
(25). Fr.
who clothes
of a Daimon,
the souls with the
"
Robe"
extraneous
robe of the flesh.
{%ixd>v)
corresponds to the bark and indicates the body.
The eye too is said to have an interior of fiery
substance, but water, earth and air enclose it (26).
Once more the fine, superior, is surrounded with
the coarse; and accordingly we are told in fr. 84
that on the creation of the eye primeval
fire,
in skins and in thin clothes, concealed
enclosed
itself behind

the round-eyed
girl (the pupil).
"
Also with the
shells of the water
heavy-backed
dwellers
the sea snails and the stone-skinned
tortoises, the earth lies on the surface of the skin
the body, which
Accordingly,
(fr. 76).
"
the soul,
is called
man-surrounding

encloses
earth"

(fr. 148) (27).

true Empedocles
differentiates
yet
With
himself from as-Sahrast?ni
and Porphyry.
"
to
the former,
refer
exclusively
bark-pith"
the couple body-soul
and the like, but a soul
And

never

the

constitutes

the

bark

of

another.

This

transformation, as shown by the underlying theory

of the four souls, could be undertaken by a Neo
Platonic
only, i.e. by Porphyry.
"
And he said: after the primeval element caused
whatever of the rational spiritual forms (as-suwar)
was

with him

reason

had

to be

caused

shaped
whatever

in reason, and
it had taken

after
over

in the
from the primeval
element to be shaped
then
the
universal
caused
soul
soul,
(universal)
whatever
it had taken over from reason to be
"
in
the universal nature
shaped
"(28).
we have translated
as
ele?
What
primeval
"
ment
in
stands
al-awwal),
opposition
(al-unsur
to the two aQ%ai, that rise from him, OiXia and

explains this shortly

(29); as-Sahrast?ni
to
said
him,
According
Empedocles
" (30).
that
the Creator did not cease to be He (31)
He is pure knowledge, pure will, liberality,
alone.
and
truth.
strength, power,
justice, goodness

in the sense that forces exist which are called

by this name, but they (the forces) are He, and
he is synonimous with them all, creator (mubdic)
only (32); not

in the sense that he

created

out of

something (33), and not in the sense that some?

the
thing had existed outside him; he created
is
the
first
which
simple
something,
simple
vorjrov (34) (ma'q?l) and the first *unsur (35)
This renders the passage
capable of interpreta?
a
We
formative process, which
tion.
recognize
starts from the creator and the primeval element

the intelligible, reason,

successively
soul and universal nature.
Each
step
utilizes what has come over from the preceding
for the formation of a new one. We have thus
again a gradation, with the only difference that
and

includes

universal

this time it proceeds

The

series

ev

from the higher to the lower.

vorjrov

vovg

?
ipvxtf

(pvatg

to Plotinus
the diffe?
According
a
rentiation of vorjrov and vovg is of
purely con?
ceptual kind: the vorjrov does not stand outside
is Neoplatonic.

the

thus opposes the view of the

vovg (36). He
younger Porphyry, who wanted to separate vorj?
rov and vovg (37). The
series found with as
The
is therefore purely Porphyrian.
Sahrast?ni

for such
starting point
have been Empedocles's

an

word

interpretation may
on the ocpalgog,

of the solitude
all
rejoices
prevailing
was
It
the
and
with
ev,
(38).
equated
runsur.
thus with as-Sahrast?ni's
"
In the (universal) nature barks
(= bodies)
came into existence, which were not similar to it

which

around

(in their real essence) ("), nor were

to the spiritual,
subtle
reason".
had
from
soul
received
universal
become
universal
connected

form in the universal

nature.

they similar
the
What
reason, had
Thus the

in its origin and essence,

is
nature,
with reason.
The bodies, which now

come

into being in the universal nature,

similar from the real essence of universal

are dis?

nature,
with reason.
they are unconnected
cannot conceal the fact that another, and
We
is possible:
probably more correct interpretation
because

in tusbihuhd might be referred to the subject

of the preceding
sentence, viz. to the universal
It then would mean:
the barks = bodies,
soul.

?h?

in the universal
that arise
resemble
nature,
soul nor the reason.
neither the universal
"
But
after reason had
looked upon
it (the

nature) (40) and has seen the spirit and

the pith within the bodies and the barks, a num?
ber of fine, noble and splendid forms flowed down
universal

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

upon it (the universal nature)

(41); and these are
the forms of the souls that resemble the rational,
spiritual forms, so that they (the souls)
it
and freely rule
govern
(the universal nature)
over it thanks to the distinction between barks
fine and

pith, and in the last instance let the pith

ascend to their (the souls') world ".
sees through what had taken place in
Reason
nature.
It sees the arising bodies,
universal
which do not resemble it and the original essence
and

of universal

bodies

nature.

enclose

are witness
which

it sees

But

contents.

spiritual
to the real essence

is connected

that

also

the

contents

These

of universal

nature,
being im?

with

reason; but,
prisoned in bodies, need refinement and liberation.
They obtain both through the insight of reason:
forms that resemble the forms of reason
(once
more a Neoplatonic
unite with the
conception),
the spiritual
nature.
They permeate
immediate
refine
and
them
them
contents,
give
"
"
course
access to the universal nature.
Of
pith
in the last sentence indicates the spiritual con?

universal

tents, which are embellished by the flowing down

of the forms of the soul.
"
And the partial souls were parts of the uni?
versal soul like the parts of the sun rising over the
openings
is caused

of the house, and

by the (universal)

nature

the universal
soul.

And

he

(Em?
between part and what is
pedocles) distinguished
the part is one thing and what is caused
caused;
"
another
(42).
With the individual souls as parts of the uni?
versal soul, we find ourselves once more within the
compass of Plotinian and Porphyrian thought (43).
the universal nature stands in a more ex?
While
terior relationship to the universal soul on account
(44), the essence of the part is
a
explained by
comparison with the sun. Once
more Plotinus
the simile of the light,
employs
of its being

above

caused

he has to explain the relationship

a higher and a lower hypostasis
(1, 1, 12,

all when

between

1, 1, 8, 15; 2, 9, 2-3; 6, 4, 15 in the middle).

too the starting point can be recognized.
to Empedocles
fr. 22 the radiating sun
According

26f.;
Here

is harmoniously
(fjhexTcoo), like all cosmic powers,
the latter are
its parts, although
united with
in
the
world.
mortal
scattered
widely
"
He said further: the peculiarity of the universal
soul is love. After it (the universal
soul) had
looked upon reason and its beauty and splendour,
it loved it, as the lover the object of his love.

And

it tried to unite with

it and moved

toward

nature
of universal
the peculiarity
is
no
it
it
after
had
arose,
vision,
fight, because,
it could perceive
and love the
through which
it.

And

soul and reason.

Rather,
opposite
(universal)
On
forces arose from it (the universal nature).

the side of its (the universal nature's)

simple com?
ponent parts were the opposite
(forces) of the
elements, on the side of its compounded
parts
were the mutually
opposite
temperamental
(mi
zap), structural
(tabil) (45), vegetal
(nabdti) and
animal
(hayawdm) forces. And they (the forces)
it (the universal
stood up against
soul) because

distance
from its (the universal
soul's)
and
there
whole,
agreed with them (with the for?
by its
ces) the soul-parts, who were led astray
"
(46).
(the universal nature's) deceptive world
of the
0dia
and Nelxog,
familiar conceptions
of the

theory of nature, appear here in a

In the ITeol yvoeoog nature
is
"
. . . now
unites
Both:
with
everything
permeated
into one in love, now the single elements separate
"
in the hatred of fight
47). Now love alone suits
of love.
the universal
soul. Nature
is incapable

Empedoclean
new version.

Its essence

is fight. Both the simple components

ones fight against
and the compounded
one
side the elements fight
other.
On the

of nature
each

other, on the other side the living beings do

the same; in the Tleql <pvaecog fighting lays hold
"
Now One grows out of
of the elements too:
each

into sole Being, now it separates

Many
again, to
out of One: fire and water and earth
be Many
and the infinite height of air, then fight separate
"
from them, equally strong everywhere
(48). But
no
when
&Ma
the
seizes
elements
more,
Nelxog
too does it. Both permeate nature as union and

too
In our passage
life and death.
separation,
love is union: fight is, if not death, at least separ?
But while in
ation, entanglement,
estrangement.

the liegt (pvascog the anthitesis operates horizon?

it does so vertically.
I^ove
tally, in our passage
comes
from above
and aspires upward,
fight
and drags downward.
Since
operates downward

to the universal
soul and fight
love corresponds
to nature, the whole of the world arranges itself
order: above the universal
in superimposed
soul,
Reason
adheres to
below the universal nature.
soul, while the elements and their
to universal
thus they
nature;
belong
are
the
and
world
of
withdrawn
Nelxog
belong,to
from 0iXLa, become
the opposite pole of &iHa.
Once more we can recognize the size of the
the universal

blends

transformation
self.

For

has permitted him?

Cypris was the primeval
even before Kronos
(fr.

that Porphyry

Empedocles,

goddess, who reigned

equated
128), and Porphyry

expressly with
in
But what he arranged
&dla
(de abst. 2. 20).
a
was
chro?
for
order,
Empedocles
superimposed
her

a golden age, to be followed

sequence:
nological
This
will
find confirmation later on.
other
ages.
by
In the details, we find again contacts with the
We
original Empedocles.
souls that Nelxog
drags

are

them

told

away

about

the

from the
7

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

soul and reason

(49). And when universal
cannot see the universal nature Nelxog
but only
what corresponds to their own essence, we may
One

recall fr. 119, according to which love can be reco?

gnized only by love, hatred only by sorrowful
inclined toward sen?
(the soul parts)
as
such
food, wholesome
healthy
pleasure,

They

sual

drink, fresh clothing, radiant aspect and longed

for love connexion.
And
of
they forgot what
of
that beauty
and perfection,
that splendour,

and rational, was

inherent to
spiritual moral
"
their own essence
(50).
Here we must recall first of all the warning of
who laid upon his disciples to avoid
Empedocles,
"
so that
intercourse with women,
they do not
and
cooperate
works
carried

do

not

become

concerned

with

out

thus
by Nelxog.
asunder
of
the work

dissolving
"
love
clearing
(51).
Above all, in this instance too we may best com?
are involuntarily
reminded
We
pare Porphyry.
a
of
like in de abst. I, 33-34, which
description
and

renders
and

in a richer way
perceptions
Here
too
luxuriant visualization.

the sensual

with

A trans?
they chain the souls to the nether world.
ition to the following is represented by the libe?
ration happening
when the soul is reminded of

what

it has

and

forgotten
stains it [de abst. I, 30).
"
the universal
soul
When

is purified
saw

their

of what

fr. 139 mentions

the a%erXi
Accordingly,
also
and
of fr. 138
aovaag
eqya ?oq?g;
ipvyr\v
%aXxco
in
context.
this
reinforces
belongs
Empedocles

nobler

than both

and

these souls, the animal and the

than those souls ensnared
in

ones,
vegetal
them, in order that it should prevent both souls
from inveighing, and should teach the ensnared
souls

to

and

love her

(the universal
remind them of what

should
gotten, and should

soul's) world,
they had for?

instruct them in what they did

not know, and should purify them of that with
which they had stained themselves,
and should
cleanse

them of that with which they had made

"
unclean
(53).
learn here for the first time that not only

themselves
We
parts
animal

of the universal

soul

than

the remaining parts

in the universal

in general,

but

the

in particular
and vegetal
belong to the
souls ensnared in the universal nature and Nelxog.
The animal and vegetal souls stand one step lower
ensnared

of the

that are
so that they

soul

nature,
are separated
from these.
the ensnarement
With Empedocles,

of the
the myth
indictment
by quoting
juerevaco/udrcocug to the effect that the father
slaughters his son, the son his father, the mother
her children in order to swallow their own flesh
and

blood

in the
should place
(fr. 137). We
the
to
connexion
admonition
from
abstain

same

laurel leaves and beans (fr. 140-141).

Trees alone
bore once fruits the whole year and could therefore
give of them to man
(fr. 77-78) (5i). As the for?
mer referred to the animal soul, so the latter to
we find in fr. 117 a
the vegetal.
Accordingly
sequence of boy, girl, animal and plant that tra?
verses the soul, and in fr. 127 the transformation
of former men
The
more
Age,

in lions and

and plant.

animal

of our

peculiarity

(55). Empedocles
an ideal primitive

of
knowing
meat.
Here
neither

of

laurels,
text

referred
condition

i.e. again

stands
to

the

out

in

once

Golden

in which men,
from
abstained

juerevacojudrooacg,
on the contrary there is question
nor of the juerev
the Golden
Age

GcojudrooGig, but the lower forms of the soul, being

are led back
in the world of Nelxog,
ensnared

by a finer and nobler part of the soul.

was a chronological
sequence with Empe?
?
docles
Golden Age followed by others, worse
ones ?,
is again decomposed
for Porphyry
into
an above and a below, into spiritual and rational

home
(the soul
she sent

parts') inveighing and their ensnarement,

down to them one of her (the universal
soul's)
finer
and
parts, which was more penetrating
(52),

mal

of all.

the

hatred.

"

among men, to tear away life and to swallow up

the greatest defilement
noble limbs was deemed

What

one.
world in opposition to the material
"
And this noble part
the
universal
soul)
(of
is the prophet
(an-nabT), who is sent out in each
rotation

of rotations.

He

walks

in the

rules of

reason

and of the first primitive element, in what

concerns the observance of OiXia and Nelxog.
He
treats some of the souls as a friend with wisdom
and kind admonition, with others he deals sharply
with force and through Nelxog
(56). And some?

sword

summons

(57) by his tongue on behalf

in a kind way, and sometimes by the
on behalf of Nelxog
in a violent way,
in

times he

of 0dta

partial souls that are

ensnared in the temptations of both the tempera?
mental souls (the animal and the vegetal), by the
"
empty temptation and the vain delusion
(58).
re?
First of all, it is clear that Porphyry was
minded of a Platonian
formulation (59). In Phaedon
order to liberate

the noble

over everything
the mastery
in man
is
to the rational part of the soul.
This
over the soul r? juev%aXend>reqov xoXd^o
mastery
vaa xal fier ?Xyrjdovoov... r? de Jtqaoreqov, xal r?
94 B

of the ani?

soul in the world of Nelxog is shown above all

the
by
killing and eating of the animal. Fr. 128, 8f.
tells of the Golden Age, in which, contrary, to the
present, no altar was sprinkled with bull blood;

ascribed

juev ?nedovoa,
xal oqyalg xal

r? de vov&erovoa, ralg em&vfiiaig

cpo?oig oog aXXrj ovaa ?XXco nqdyfxart

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

This agrees
diaXeyofievT] (94 D); cf. Rep. 617 D.
with the picture hitherto obtained.
"
"
What does
that rotation of rotations
mean?
it is the xvkXoq, the xaftoXov [jisxa?oXrj.
even of the Ttsotodogby Em?
speaks

Apparently
Aristoteles

revolution,
pedocles
(60); only it is not a cosmic
"
but one of the soul; a revolving by
rejection and
"
more
correctly perhaps by en?
redemption
(61),
snarement and liberation.
The Golden Age, des?

as an ideal primitive state,

cribed by Empedocles
must be followed by others; and it can be had in
"
"
the mention
of a number of
rotations
which
as a matter of principle is illimited.
These ages
do not

fit with

Porphyry's
interpretation, who
course, but only an above and a
no Golden Age, and therefore could

no

recognized
below, and
not recognize
fact shows

But this very

any following age.
that we have stumbled
upon some?

thing truly Empedoclean.

It still remains to be explained what
is conce?
"
aled under this
could think of
prophet ". We
fr. 146, where the sentence rcov aocpcov rag tpv%ag
as Empedocles's
tea?
is quoted
fteovg yhsa&ai
are
as
the
mentioned
ching, whereupon
judvxsig
"
as
the first of those
who grow up
gods, richest in
of himself
says
Empedocles
that he goes about as an immortal god (fr. 112,4),
come to him juavxocrvvecov xs^qrifjisvoi
and men

honours".

also

(1. c. 10). And

as-Sahrast?ni's

yet it would be absurd to see in

"
"
simply an Empedo?
prophet
clean judvrtg. Wherever
Empedocles
paraphrases
a corresponding conception, he does not do it by

an

'IrjTQot vpuvonoloi and the

is
side of the fjtdvxsig. There

unequivocal
stand at the
always a multiplicity

of words

and

conceptions,
to his heart (62).
rather suit as-Sahrast?ni,
with whom this idea plays a certain role (63). Or
does it lead to Porphyry himself?
as plurality of names
"
"
The
would
prophet

lies near

of the Egyptians
Granted, he speaks of TZQoqrfjTcu
abst.
and
does
the same in
Iamblichus
4,
8),
(de

letter to Anebo
his reply to Porphyry's
(de my st.
must
first
be
The
eliminated, so
corporeal
1,1).
that

may be prepared elg v7tobo%r]v

7iqo(pr\xr\g
become the pure seat of
soul must
divine
radiates
emnvoia, which
it;
upon
the

The

the
so we are told in another passage
(de myst. 3, 11).
"
But this too has nothing to do with the
pro?
"
as described by as-Sahrast?ni.
phet
"
And
he
clothes
sometimes
(the prophet)
both

if domination

and

(ri%r\) falls to the lot

love such ones, so that he over?
fortune

of one, then men

comes his enemies (64) through their (these mens')
love to him (65) ?.
"
"
It turns out once more that the
prophet
knows how to utilize both, &iMa
and Nslxog.
appears now as the more important,
Only, 0iMa

it not only connects the followers with

their prophet, but also helps the latter, by this
Above
very fact, to victory over the enemies.
a
word is said, which is the key to everything
all:
that precedes.
the daula
The prophet possessing
means
that he is a jtohnxog, of course not an
because

ordinary
and will

one, but one who comes from above

once return to his divine home.
In

let us recall that the title noXinxog

is handed down for Empedocles
(66).
Most of what we said above is new and, as we

this connexion

must

And yet
confess, unexpected.
The
fitted
into
the
whole.
solubly

it is indis
end

turns

to the beginning,
and
Vegetal

an original condition
is
animal souls, created as
bark of the logical and rational ones, are brought
back to the upper realm and take again their
seat there (67).
back

restored.

3.

term,

like

ftsov.

to the world
and animal souls) ascends
vegetal
of the spiritual beings, and both are a body for
it (the noble partial soul) in that world, as both
were a body for it in this world.
For it is said:

the

the robe

lower

souls

(vegetal and animal) with

soul, so that the quality
into love, which loves what is

of the noble

of lust is changed
of anger
good, right and true, and the quality
so that what
into that of combat,
is
changes
is defeated,
and at
bad, vain and mendacious
last the noble partial soul united with both (the

in
of the Empedoclean
philosophy
Islamic times was the Spanish mystic Ibn Masarra
(d. 931). M. Asm Palacios wrote a widely noticed
on him (68), and in connexion with
it
memoir
A

defender

Horten
Ibn Masarra's
teaching
(69) declared
to be a compilation
from Philon, Plotinus and the
But this judgment con?
historical Empedocles.
cerns less Ibn Masarra
himself than the recon?

M.

The
latter
given by Asm Palacios.
a
no
but
summary of
original texts,
presented
whom
what Arabic authors, among
as-Sahrast?ni,
It is, however, not
narrate about Empedocles.
struction

proved and not even likely that all this goes back
can show this just at the
to Ibn Masarra.
We
of as-Sahrast?ni.
It is evident from the summary given by Asm
Palacios
(70) that in some case the text of as-Sah
hand

This
is close to that of as-Sahraz?ri.
is the case for a piece from what we have treated
above (71), but also for the rest of the chapter on
rast?ni

Empedocles.
(as shown

the passage
Even
265, 4-11, which
in the preceding note) does not come

in
at all, finds its counterpart
from Porphyry
Since this author died 1243 and
as-Sahraz?ri.
9

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

later than as-Sahrast?ni

is therefore substantially
(d. 1153), we come to the simple conclusion that
took the above-mentioned
as-Sahraz?ri
passages
of as-Sahrast?ni.
Nothing
that both might go back to Ibn Masarra.
from the work

he ob?
taught and where
of Empedocles,
remains at

Ibn Masarra

What

shows

tained

his knowledge
an open question.
it the Syriac
Was
present
of the QiXococpoq laroqia, an Arabic
translation

or even (the last and less likely pos?

adaptation
a
knowledge of the originals? An answer
sibility)
will be given only when we shall have the extant
text of Ibn Masarra
The

basis

(72).
of all discussion

is the fact that the

of as-Sahrast?ni

goes back
latter who has

above-treated

passage
to Porphyry,
it is the
because
in his writings for purposes of comparison
quoted
numerous
And since
fragments of Empedocles.
we
as
is
the
show pres?
shall
one,
only
Porphyry
we
some
to
know
of
ently,
things
Empedocles,
safely conclude

may

that he himself

original Empedocles.
A survey of the fragments
elicits a peculiar picture. Fr.

still read the

cited by Porphyry
105 alone is taken

was

occurs

as an adversary
Pythagoras
The
from the
following quotations
(77).
are
fr.
128
the
excep?
given:
(78) (with
Kafiaojuol
tion of v. 9) and later one its vv. 8-10 (79); further
fr. 139 (80) and 124,2 (81). To these we may add

fr. 139.

This

is of decisive

observation

for an evaluation

of the passage

found

import
in as-Sah

rastani.

The

beginning

Empedocles's
shows that

sentence,
according
had
another

teaching

to which
"
start

something
bringing
Porphyry was
in front of what was hitherto current in the

new

literature as the opinion of Empedo?

doxographic
cles. He was conscious that he was thus proposing
or forgotten:
for discussion
something unknown
an

outline

of the
of the Empedoclean
doctrine
of
which
that
If
the
latter
followed
soul,
physics.
went back to the didascalic
IIsol
poem
cpvoecog,
on anything
else but the Ka$ag/j,oL.
This agrees with the ob?
in his extant writings
servation that Porphyry
more
this
far
poem by
quotes
frequently than any
As as-Sahrast?ni
other.
speaks of another, i.e.
a second start, thus in the ancien editions the
then the former could not be based

Kafiag/Lioi came after the two books liegt cpvaecog (74).

to the Ka&agjLtot
Tzetzes
(75) could even allude
as

reo

The

roirco

rcov

discussions

cpvaixcov

on

(76).

two passages
(82) of lesser importance. Empedocles
is for Porphyry one of the precursors and champ?
ions of abstinence
(83).

to show again the same thing

It is unnecessary
for the doctrine of Soul. Of course all this implies
that Porphyry, whenever he speaks of Empedo?

cles, is only too inclined to read him with neo

of our passage
Platonic
eyes; the examination
has supplied proof enough for this. The question
it has also yielded
remains, whether
for the true Empedocles.
No need to
this may be sought for. If we leave
details, confirmations and coincidences
in our passage, the novelty in it is the
and noXirixog, liberator
"prophet"
and regulator of the world.

something
tell where
aside

the

contained
role of the

of the soul (84)

4.
The
found

Aramaic

version

of the story of Ahiqar,

or less incomplete papyros
from Elephantine,
led down to the query

in eleven more

shreds
about the

origin
From

literature.
erved

in

of this piece of most

later times, the book

ancient

is pres?

Arabic, Ethiopic,
neo-Syriac,
and Roumanian
neo-Greek
Slavonian,
Syriac,

Armenian,

version was writ?

adaptations
(8S). The Aramaic
ten down about 430 B.C.; was
it not only the
earliest, but also the original one? A. Cowley, who
the matter thoroughly (86), after weig?
all
the
evidence came to the conclusion
that
hing
itwas a translation from Old Persian into Aramaic;
at least the Aramaic
text came into being under a
discussed

Persian

strong Old

written

Influence; but the book was

com?
in Akkadian
and was

originally
in the neo-Babylonian
period about 550.
formulation shows that it is possible
Cowley's

posed
to

find evidence

(at
answer

for contacts

with

with

Old

that we
opinion),
sufficient assurance
the

in his

least

but

Persian

cannot
central

it is a translation
from Old
question whether
or
one
that was made
in the
Persian,
simply
must
We
Achaemenian
add
that
the
period.
remarks put

as

forward

to his

support

in several

contention

forms by Cowley
do not bear close

scrutiny.

slaughter and sacrifice of

of meat lead back logically

animals, on partaking
to Empedocles's
four books

with

is bracketed

of meat

on
from Empedocles's
didascalic
poem
great
no
seven
Nature.
On the other side,
less than
are culled
from the Ka&ao/bioL
Of
fragments

these, fr. 115 is frequently cited (73), fr. 126 occurs

also in Plutarch
(de esu cam. 2, 3 p. 998 c), but
fr. 128, as well as 129, 3-6 occur with Porphyry
alone. Porphyry, therefore, utilized
the original
and
indeed
mentions
them
by name in
Ka&aQjuoi,

the name
of Empedocles
expected,
frequently in them. At the beginning he

to be

on

abstinence.

As

According
of Assyria
expected;

as the name
to him, Hwr appears
to be
instead of the 'swr that was

and this reminds of Old Persian

10

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

a&ur?-.

is no

There

doubt

that

ind the Old

ployed
emenian

latter

the

Persian

version

form is em?
of the Acha

inscriptions. But already R. G. Kent

(87)
"
under the catchword
from the
a&ur?registers
We have
'swr in Hebrew
Semitic".
(also ssr),
also in the Panamm?
inscription 1. 7 and in the

inscription of Bar Rakib

(88) 1. 9; further, Assyr.
as-sur.
But there also the parallel forms Jew.
Aram. att?r, Syr. ?t?r and *A&ovo in Tobit
14, 4;
'A&ovQta in 14, 15 (side by side with 'Aaavqiot 1, 3;

If the Aramaic
10; 22; 14, 4) in the Sinaiticus.
Ahiqar writes regularly 'twr, there is no reason
to treat this differently from tql Cowley no. 10, 5
confronted with
It is an
else.
sql everywhere
a
Aramaic
and
without
doubt
Old
peculiarity,
Persian

afturd- goes back to the Aramaic

and not the other way round.
The
the

form,

reason

second

of

apposition

to

is
put forward by Cowley
smh to the personal
name,
an Old Persian N. N.
n?ma.

corresponding
But postponed
smh occurs also, as already seen
by Cowley (89), in no. 28, 4; 5; 9; 13 and no. 66, 1.
can add now Brooklyn Papyri no. 8, 3 and
We
with feminine suffix no. 2,3; 5, 2; 4; 6, 3; 7, 3.
G. Kraeling
remarks (90): "In
E.
Babylonian
name
of the servant is followed by the
style the
'

word

The

name

his

same
G.

Lately
derivation

i.

'

e.

name

by

occurs

'"

in the Ars?ma

usage
R. Driver

has

from Old

Persian

sum-su.

*hrwith

an Old

repeatedly
is found in the remaining Cowley
in the Brooklyn Papyri,
in the Ars?ma
It

Papyri,
letters and

in Biblical

position

But
pasdva.
in other Aramaic

Aramaic.

on this problem

has

last to take

The

been W.

ning (92).
Thus
all the arguments
that can be
in favour of a translation
from Old

like hyl Hwr (1. 55; 61) does not point to the
"
"
"
The
wise scribe, the coun?
army
proper.
"
sellor of all Assyria
(1. 12), the keeper of the
seal (1. 3), 6 ?g%toivo%6og xal enl daxxvttov xal

1, 22 Sin.) had
diotxrjxrjg xal exXoyiaxrjq (Tobit
was
to
do
it.
with
he
Rather
concerned
nothing

dom,

be

termed

people,
i. e. all that Old Persian

Besides,
employs

the

fact that

Aramaic

the

only, with

hyl\ the aris?

the high official?
kdra- implies (92a).

scribe

of the

exclusion

king
of Akka

exclude

an

times.
Akkadic

story arose in Aramaic

language
times, then everything points

of this

that

its

contention we may
first literary mention

adduce

the

to

belongs

this period.
The Aramaic

text is divided
into the story
of Ahiqar
and
his
wise
sayings (11. 79
(11. 1-78)
occur
The
with
latter
also
Democritus,
223).
an

older

of Plato

contemporary
str?m. 1, 15, 69

Clemens
ev.
praep.

(93).

Euseb.,
''(cf.
10, 4) says: My erat... rr)v Anrndoov axr]Xr\vsq/Lievsv
In a lat?
?slaav roiQ Idtotg avvrd^ai avyy^djujuaaiv.
ter passage we are told that Democritus went to

Alex.,

Babylonia.
F. Nau

(94) tried to show, starting from the

that the sayings of Democritus
Syriac version,
contained
in the collection
of Stobaeus
agree

But he had to concede

those of Ahiqar.
"
les points de contact ne sont ni aussi
nombreux ni aussi frappants que nous pourrions
"
le desirer
imputes this unsatisfactory
(95). Nau
result to the unfavourable
tradition, which pre?
served only few sayings of Democritus
and only
even
But
late versions of the Ahiqar
story (96).

saw the light just in

text, which
time to be known by him (97), did not improve
the situation.
The
pre?
sayings of Democritus
the Aramaic

served

show no convincing
the original.
Diels
declared
the statement
in Greek

coincidences

even with
H.
as

Persian,
fall to the ground.
it remains cer?
Nevertheless
tain that this version of the
story came
Ahiqar
into being in Achaemenian
times. An expression

with what could also

tocracy, the high-class

favour

fact

B. Hen?
adduced

in Achaemenian

being not only the earliest for

but
the
also
us,
original one. Since the papyrus
can be dated
in the late 5th century, the book
In
earlier.
may have been composed not much

that

Persian

occurs

texts too.

to this version

with

remark (91); but this is

by Kraeling's
by the lack of the 3. sing, suffix in
Old Persian and by its presence
in Babylonian.
wants
to
the often
Lastly,
Cowley
equate

both

into being
observations

original.
If the Ahiqar
and Achaemenian

up again the
e
that had been

liminated

it came

that
And

letters.

taken

confuted

employed
the word

die, can be thought of only under the Achaeme

nians.
This, however, does not imply that the
text was translated
from Old Persian, but only

late

spurious,
as the

and W.
sixth

edition

Vorsokratiker
no.

299

Adnotatio

Kranz

of Clemens
him, as

followed

der
of the Fragmente
words
stand as

Clemens's

(1952).
the spurious fragments, and the
reproduces the arguments that decided

among

to reject it. Of the seven arguments

ad?
"
nn.
4
author
3
and
calls
their
duced,
striking
no. 7 "at
least striking
but not decisive

Diels

they can, therefore, be left out

reference to the non-classical
"
as
Diels
reckoned
decisive

of account.

The

eyevrj'&rjv,which
has been elimi?

of Archyt. B 1 (98).
by Kranz's
quotation
"
"
manner
As to the
of expression
wry
(no. 6),
on a misunderstanding
it is based
of the final
nated

sentence.

Evv

rocg

naaw

etc

ersa

snl

" oydooxovra
only mean
Together with
ietvrjg eysvrj'drjv can
these (including the aojisdovdnrai),
1 was finally
11

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

on foreign soil ".

ac?
who
Democritus,
to Diod.
14, 11, 5 lived till the age of
en natg cov listened to Mages
and Chal

80 years
cording
90 and

said
9, 34), can have
(Diog. Laert.
with
This
advanced
agrees
age only.
general import, which looks back to a past
Clemens's
sentence
enfjWe yap Ba?vXcovd re
daeans

this

at an

the
life.
xal

xal rolg
rolg re Mdyoig
Alyvicrov
the
leqevoi jua'd'rjrevcovgives
explanation.
In no case Clemens meant herewith an allusion
xal

TIeoaida

to the work neql rcov evBa?vXcovi leocov ygajujudrcov,

on the
are mentioned
because Persis and Egypt

of Babylonia.
That
book can only have
the cuneiform script, and Ahiqar's
say?
ings were not noted down in that, but in the
Aramaic
Such pillars in Aramaic
script.
script
side

treated

and

language with edicts and religious precepts

of Asoka
known by the
have now been made
the
of
Taxila
and
Pul-i
Daruntah;
Inscriptions

even of what
on the
is written
speaks
or
stele (brm[wd']) ("). Ahiqar's
wise say?
pillar
ings too may have been brought to the knowledge
latter

of the public in this way.

the beginning
sentence needs no al?
Lastly,
teration.
Arjjuoxoirog y?g rovg Ba?vXcovlovg
Xoyovg
"
can only mean:
Democritus
fj&txovg nenoh]rai

the Babylonian
employed
Xoyoi as ethical (Xd
"
This
is
yoi)
(10?).
explained by what follows: "It
is indeed said that he translated the stele of Aki
it among his own writings ".
It has not hitherto been noticed
that, apart
"
from the "Sayings
of Democrates
(fr. 35-115)
from what
and
Stobaeus
gives
(fr.
169-297),
"
are
further
Wise
of Democritus
Sayings"

karos

and

included

in

preserved

Kit?b

as-Sahrast?ni's

which

included

"

Wise

Solon, Homer,
with

chiefly

are

They

"
of Zeno,
Sayings
and others (104); and
of Democritus
(105).

Hippocrates
the
sayings
less numerous
than

philosophers;
coincidences

those of the other

i. e. verbal
but the supply univoc?l,
the
with
Ahiqar.

Th. N?ldeke
Already
(106) remarked that two
of the sayings of Democritus
there given occur
also in the Syriac version of the Ahiqar
story,
and a third one in the Armenian
and Slavonian
more
another, much
important
1. 148
coincidence
Ahiqar
escaped N?ldeke
(107):
"
Be not sweet,
7 My w*l[ybF}wk *ltmr [w'lyrqwk
version.

But

so that

not -be devoured,

be not
thou mayest
so
not
vomited
thou
that
be
bitter,
mayest
Id takun hulwan
Sahrast?ni
305, 20 Cureton:
Wall?
tubla9 wa?l? murran
jiddan, <(
jiddan Walla
so
not
too
be
that
thou
sweet,
mayest
tulfaz
not be devoured,
and be not too bitter, so that
not be vomited
thou mayest

and pre?
saying is of an unique vividness
gnancy: it could hardly be invented independen?
Even
tly, above all in this coinciding expression.
if we remain doubtful
in front of Nau's
combi?
The

is thus proved
nations, the use of Ahiqar's wisdom
for the later versions by three instances, and for
the earliest by only one instance, which however
must
have
all doubt.
is beyond
Democritus
come to know the sayings of Ahiqar
in the course
of the late 5th century.
This agrees with the
of the Aramaic work, which
time of composition
determined
above on the basis of its form

was

and

tradition

(108).

al-milal

4.

wa-n-nihal.

It is peculiar
for Empedocles

that his data have

been

exploited
only (101). But there is no reason
for limiting ourselves
to one philosopher, when
we have here information on other Pre-Socratics
too and fragments of their works
(and numer?

ous ones at that). We

can go much
farther.
Sahrast?ni's manual has proved to be a valuable
source in several ways.
It has supplied a frag?
ment
of Mazdak's
writings
(the only extant
one), which
classification

preserved

made

of that

for us

the

possible

philosophical
(102). It has

revolutionary
extract
from Porphyry's
which
else
(beside much

an

@iX6aocpog
iarogia,
includes the table
that has not yet been utilized)
of contents of Empedocles's
Lastly,
Ka&agjLtoi.
a fragment from
the Arabic work has preserved

to
letter to Anebo, which elucidates
Porphyry's
extent
of
the
Iamblichos's
antecedents
great
writing on the mysteries
(103).
This

the

time we

gium utilized

are

concerned

by Sahrast?ni

with

the florile

(or his predecessor),

what we said above,

the whole
of Sah
cannot avoid translating
The attempt of
rast?m s section 305, 2 306, 20.
led to several
Th. Haarbrticker
(1850-1) has
In order to substantiate

we

in this instance too.

mistakes
"
The wise sayings of Democritus
(dtmoqrdtts).
one of the most
remarkable wise men
He was
He and
of Bahman
b. Isfendiy?r.
same
at
Plato.
before
lived
the
time,
Hippocrates
He had (definite) opinions in philosophy, mainly
in the times

of being
and on passing
beginnings
to
used
Aristoteles
away.
prefer his
(Demo
to
of his master Plato,
those
discourses
critus's)
was unjust
the divine one, and he
(Aristoteles)
on

the

in this.

is represen?
Said Democritus:
External
beauty
But as to
ted by the painters through colours.
it except
the internal one, nobody
represents
he to whom it really belongs, i. e. its (the internal
creator and svoerrjg.
beauty's)

12

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

He

is not meet

It

said:

for thee

to consider

thyself a man, while anger eliminates

thy jud?
follows
desire
and
thy
gement
(109).
He
for men to be tested
said: It is not meet
at the time of their humiliation,
of their strength and might. And
thus man

in the furnace,

of) might,
from evil.
separated
He said: It is meet
after

sciences

and

faults

thou

at the time

as iron is tested

is tested

so that

session

but

the good

in (the pos?
in him be

it to the virtues.

if thou dost not do it, thou shalt have

tage from the sciences.

For,
no advan?

to his bro?
gives possessions
ther, gives him his treasures, and he who gives
and his good advice, gives
him his knowledge
him his soul.
said: He

He

who

It is not meet for thee to reckon profit,

a great damage
as (real)
lies concealed,
in which a great
profit, and (to reckon) damage,
as (real) damage, nor (is it
profit lies concealed,
a
life that is not laudable,
concerning
meet),
to reckon it as (real) life.
He

said:

in which

said: He

He

is like him who

who

is content

is content

eating.

He

with

with

the name,
smell, without

is better than a stupid

said: A clever enemy

friend.
He
the

said: The

idleness

repentance

and

He

that he
. .

fruit

of idleness, and the

and crime and
is foolishness

sadness.

to cleanse
is necessary
for man
from cunning and guile, as he cleanses
from the kinds of fornication.

his body
He
said: Wish
row.

and

It

said:

his heart

not

is negligence,
is decay,
and the

fruit of negligence
is the appearance

of decay
fruit of

He

fruit of might

today

not, with regard to another,

follow on thy foot and to-mor?

(no).

said: Be not too sweet, so that thou mayest

and not too bitter, so that
be devoured,

not be vomited.
thou mayest
He
The
tail of the dog acquires him his
said:
food, and his mouth
acquires
(him) beatings.
an untalented
There was
in Athens
painter.
came

He

to Democritus

and said: Plaster

thy
I may paint
it. He
(Democritus)
it
it first, so that I may plaster
Paint

that

house,
replied:
afterward.

is to one who does not

said: As knowledge
he
when
it
it, still does not
and,
accepts
accept
man
a
medicine
to
sick
know, thus is
by which
he is not healed.
He

He

was
He

eyes.
his ears.

told:
was
He

was

not! And he closed his

Look
not! And he covered
told: Hear
told: Speak

not! And

cessity within
man
Because

(sirr) and free decision without.

as
is determined
by necessity
rule
regards his origin
(had?t), he is without
over his heart, although by his heart he is more

limbs. Therefore, as long as he cannot

as regards his
innermost
decide
freely
(asl)f
no
there is
possibility for him to shape his inner?

than his

for thee to begin with the

hast cleansed
thy soul of

accustomed

not!
his hand on his lips. He was told: Know
He wanted
He
to express
replied: I cannot.
by this that the inner things (bawdtin) do not
He pointed to ne?
fall under the free decision.

he placed

most

(asl).
this saying there is a second explanation.
to it, he alluded
to the difference
According
as
between
and
senses,
because,
intelligence
On

from
cognition, a withdrawal
And once it (the intellectual
is here, it is not imaginable
to forget
cognition)
it through free will and to withdraw
from it?
as opposed
to sensual
This
shows
cognition.
regards intellectual
it is unimaginable.

intelligence is not of the kind of the senses

and soul does not belong to the sphere of the
It was said that free decision with man is
body.
one is
of two influences, of whom
compounded
that

of an imperfection, the other the

a
To the first one man
influence of
perfection.
of nature and tem?
inclines through a decision

the

influence

And as regards the second influence,

perament.
in it, if help does not reach him
weak
is
(man)
and Xoyoq
from intelligence, rational distinction
insight may be ob?
(natq)y so that penetrating
tained

and straightforward resoluteness arise and

As long
truth be loved and vanity be detested.
as such help does not come from the capacity
a prevalence
to distinguish,
in?
of the second

fluence

shows

itself.

And

if free decision

were

not compounded
of these two influences and were
not separated
in both directions, then man would

get the whole of what he strives after with his

free will without
delay and hesitation, without
a
and without uncertainty,
reflecting for moment

and favour.
advice
needing
the
held
by this wise man,
regards
opinion
it and has re?
found nobody who remembers

without
As
I

it and leaned toward it

futed it, or examined
are introduced
are 15 sayings.
There
They
and concluded
by a short remark on Democritus

the
by two extensive
concerning
interpretations
last saying.
in the times of Bahman
is placed
Democritus
latter is equated with Arta
b. Isfendiyar.
The
xerxes

tarih,
called

Kitdb-i
(464-423) (m); cf. Mirkhond's
he is
where
1271, 1, 187, 15,
Bombay
chrono?
dirdzdest
(ixaKQo%&iQ) (112). This
is of some
determination
importance;
I

logical
if Democritus's
because,
axjurj, i. e. his fortieth
under
still
is
Artaxerxes
I, then the
year,
placed
13

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

birth

Apollodorian

01.80 =

date

460-457

Hist 244 F 36 II 1030) is out ofquestion. Only

Laert. 9, 41 comes into

to
whom
Thrasyllus
according
question,
(113) in
the preface to the edition of the writings
(ret
nod rfjg dvayvebaecog rcov Arj/uoxgirov ?i?ltcov) pla?
in OL77, 3 = 470-469.
ced the birth of Democritus
can therefore in all certainty lead back
We
the
the second

in Diog.

date

to

above

Thrasyllus's
quoted
sayings
they must have stood in the vTtojuvrj/bidrcov
under the first
rjfiixcbv (book number missing)
of writings,
the
'H&ixd
group
(Diog. Laert.
= A 33
with what
This
9, 46
agrees
Diels).
been

ascertained

above.

The

are still left.

When we are told that man

explanations

is conditioned
by
as regards his origin, this opinion of
necessity
But
Democritus
is not handed
down directly.
it can be inferred from A 106 (Aristot., de rep.
4, 471b

f.), where the talk is about ?fjv and

the necessity
of death
is
dno&vrjcrxeiv. When
rt
naat
rors
discussed
dno&avelv
juev
(did
dvayxalov
its ori?
xrA.), then the contrary too, i. e. life and
must
be
character
of
the
necessity.
gin,
assigned
30

the compass of the second explanation,

the equivalence
of intelligence and soul, of vovg
and ywxtf, is common stock of the extant eviden?
Within

ce on the doctrine

of Democritus
(A 101; 106;
the
rest, it corresponds with the con?
113).
traposition of intellectual and sensual cognition,
of vovg on the one side and acofirjeug and cpavraoia
=
on the other
de anima
(A 113
Philopon.,
71, 19 f.); of didvoia and aladr\aeig
(B 125; cf.
B 9 ahffitia and alcr&rj?Eig). Democritus
himself
For

speaks

of

yvcojurjg.

. ,

dvo.

. .

tdetu,

rj

fisv

yvr\alr\y

fj de oxorLrj. In axorir\ he includes oxpig, dxorj,

yevcug, \pavatg (B 11). Lastly, also the two
"odjurj,
"
on the free decision of man occur
influences
in the fragments of Democritus.
They are eidcoXa
approach man
fjiev elvai ayad'onoid,

which

(EfXTtekd^eiv):xal
rd de xaxonoid

rovrcov rd
adds

the

B
175
authority
Correspondingly,
(B 166).
are
as
a
of
from
the
separated
gift
rdya&d
gods
the xaxa xal ?Xa?eqd xal dvcocpeXea, which
e^ne
dtd vov rvcpXorrjra xal dyvcojuoavvfjvman.
M?ovoi
There can be no doubt, that the explanations
in the best of the tradition; they too must

stand

And hereby the authen?

go back to Thrasyllus.
of
the
verbal
ticity
Sayings,
fragments, the Wise
is guaranteed.
Translations
of Democritan
writ?
ings into
mentioned

by
shows

context
tended
de

the

and

thence

into Arabic

are

The
181, 5 f. Lippert.
al-Qifti
that physical writings were
in?

all, which of course does not exclu?

translation
of others. The
rasd'il cited

above

in passing
spurious

Syriac

1. 7 and Fihrist
letters

The
picture presented
Democritus
shall now be

back
give

354, 23 Fl?gel
2-6
C
Diels).
(68

are the

phrastus
toteles's

"

and

commentary

Wise

Sayings

This man

(fwfrstys).
and
pupils

fragments of
by a second

florilegium
as-Sahrast?ni.
They go
We
writing on music.

to Theophrastus's
their translation

(337, 14 Cureton)

the

by

completed
from the same

group of these, taken

that was utilized
by

edition,

where

has

5.

(FGr

to

the

as well.

of Theo

to Aris?
belonged
ones
among
great
followed him (Ari?

He
the latter's companions.
stoteles) (or: he [Aristoteles] appointed

him [Theo
phrastus] as his successor) on the seat of wisdom
after his death,
and the lovers of philosophy
used to visit him and to learn from him.
He
commentaries
and
esteemed
many
composed
on
works (of his own), chiefly
music
(?-1-mustq?z;
".
sic)

In regard to the writings of Theophrastus,

Ibn
107, 1 Iyippert) says something
al-Qifti "(tank
The books of his uncle
similar:
(father's bro?
were
in
studied
his
and
he wrote
school,
ther)

great works
source
whose

For Ibn al-Qifti,

(of his own) ".
case
in this
is unknown,
Theo?
of
Aris?
phrastus was a nephew
(brother's son)
toteles (106, 17) (114). That he, a native of Eresus,
at least real estate at Stagira,
is at?
possessed
in Theophrastus's
too, sur?h must

tested
st?ni

will.

mean

With

as-Sahra
on
commentaries

of Aristoteles.

writings

(337, 17 Cureton)
that he said: (1) The

"

What

is quoted of him, is
and
does not move,
not and changes not,

divine

it varies
opinion was:
neither in essence nor in the idea of the actions
to whom
P. Moreaux,
(if there is no express

his

all the following ex?

to the contrary),
are due, interprets: God moves
the
planations
in
the
least
affected
without
world,
by
being
be an echo of Aristot.,
This would
this act.

mention

xivsl ov mvovjuevog.
7, perhaps
"
He
said:
is
(2) Heaven
(337, 18 Cureton)
the dwelling of the stars and the earth is the
A,

Metaph.

according to the fact that they

likeness and image of what
is
(the men)
are
and
in heaven.
fathers
They (115) (the stars)
intel?
rulers; they have souls and discriminating
not
do
suit
them.
The?
ligence, but vegetal souls
refore, they undergo neither increase nor dimi?
of men,

dwelling

nution

are

".

bodies have soul and mind;

this
of
intellects
the
constellations
of
the
goes
theory
back in the last instance to Aristot., Metaph. A 8;
18 f. The celestial
cf. also de caelo B 12, 292a
The

body

celestial

undergoes

neither

increase

14

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

nor diminution:

12 f. B. Kytzler
de caeio A 3, 2??a
adds to this
a reference to the ex?
of Moraux
explanation
...
in the
pression natura
parente ac principe
from
fragment
Theophrastus's
neql /uovaixfjg in

Marius

Victorinus

159, 8 f.

Gly. 6,

If this fragment goes back to the above-men?

we might
tioned writing of Theophrastus,
sup?
a
that
Hellenistic
pose
topos, perhaps
going
to the Pythagoreans,
effected the conjunc?
tion between
and
theory of the constellations
of the spheres (= mu?
theory ofmusic. Harmony

back

sic of the constellations)

is the hymn of praise
to the highest god. Music
of heaven
of men is
an imitation of the music
of the spheres, and
thus a sort of glorification

(337,20 Cureton)

"

of God

by mankind.

said: (3) Singing is a

He

of language, which
high form (338, 1 Cureton)
is difficult to understand
for the soul and escapes
definition of its essence.
It (the soul) causes it
(the high form of language) to become perceptible
in the form of sounds, and arouses thereby sad?

ness.

(the singing) causes every sort of distinc?

tion to become mute within its (the soul's) com?

pass

It

".

It seems to mean
that singing is the highest
form of language, a form however which escapes
The
end of the
every rational
interpretation.
mean:
distinc?
fragment could
singing abolishes
tions or distinctive
species within the compass
of the soul.

discrepancy
becomes a unity.

soul

through music every

is eliminated;
the soul

nxov

TiegI ri)v yjvxvv (^r- 89 Wimmer),

to ycovr], agree
its contrapposition

as well

with

as

what

If XvTir] comes

last

for?
fragment implies.
one
as
ward
of the three juovoixfjg ?o%ai (fr. 90),
this receives now
its counterpart.
"Exoraatg,
en?
to
and
the
irrational
corresponding
highest
hancement

of language,
is found also with Plu?
Mor.
to
38
which we can add the com?
tarch,
A,
parison with rhetors and actors 623 B: xal rovg
qr)roqag ev xolg emXoyoig xal rovg vnoxqir?g ev
xolg
oqcojuev

?bvQiiolg
xal

arqejua

naqevretvovvr

reo
ag

/ueXcpSelv jtqoodyovrag
rrjv

cpojvrjv.

"
He
said:
(338, 2 Cureton)
(4) Singing is so?
that
to
the
soul, but in no wise
mething
belongs
to the body ?
it (viz. the body) turns it (the
soul) away from what brings to it happiness ?,
as taking delight in food and drink is something
that belongs to the body and in no wise to the
soul

the

to be

for itself, i. e.
as
of the body,
exactly

soul

frees the body

from

"
He
said:
(338, 4 Cureton)
nafs corr.; an-nuf?s
Cureton)
the sounds, when
these are

(5) the soul (an

is in regard to
more
concealed,
she is in front of what
is evident

attentive

than
to her and whose

has

meaning

become

to

clear

her
soul

The
the

its climax
i. e. are

conceal,
than wdien the sounds

more
to

reaches

sounds

in listening when
incomprehensible,
have become
clear

her.

The

in
following fragments of Theophrastus
no
more
to
as-Sahrast?ni
the writing
belong
Moraux
referred
tzeqI ftovaixfjg. Nevertheless,

to yet another point of contact, viz. to the sec?

tion on Pythagoras
in as-Sahrast?ni.
contained

we
are told
Cureton)
of spiritual tones, who
can be counted
intellectually, not sensually
(har?
"
In the nether
worlds
mony of the spheres).
i. e. in the lower spheres of heaven,
language
does not prove so simple and so perfect as in the
(270, 18-271, 6
the world consists

There

that

With Theophrastus
upper ones (like harmony).
of
too music
tones) is a higher form
(= harmony
of language.
271, 10-20 Cureton. Man
likeness of macrocosmus.

as microcosmus

Then
is a
dition

we may
To the explanation
of Moreaux
add
that once more we find points of contacts with
extant
fragments of Theophrastus's
neql juovai
as to ytvojuevov xivrj/ua jbteXcodrj
xfjg (ii6^ Music

causes

independent
rejoicing in food and drink
the influence of the soul.

In other words:
in the

the

Singing
free and

of the

of the tones.

good con?
to
the
soul corresponds
harmony
or
Therefore the soul is saddened
The

by the action of the tones. Lack

on
the contrary, causes the death
harmony,
to the fragment
the soul.
This corresponds
337, 20f. Cureton.
Theophrastus

of

gladdened

of
of

harmonic
associations
277, 1-4: The
Lastly,
are delights of a higher kind, praise and sancti
fication of god are food of the spiritual essence.

may compare Theophrastus's

saying 338, 2 f.
Food
and drink accordingly
represent the food
of the body but singing, being an imitation of

We

the harmony of the spheres and a praise of God,

"
"
would be a peculiar
food
of the soul.

The
of the Pythagorean
musical
portions
in the last instance
lies at the
writing, which
basis of as-Sahrast?ni's
section, contain thought
or at least of the post
of the post-Aristotelian,
Platonian
Pythagoreismus.
are the coincidences with

The more

the fragments

significant
of Theo?

phrastus.

Franz

Altheim

and

Ruth

Stiehl
15

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES

pp.

Ein

(*) AlThEim-STiEHX,
200
f.
(2) Ai/Theim-Stikhx,

p.

R.

STiehe,

(6) AlyTHElM-STlEHly,

p.

(7) Fihrist
14.

I,

vit.

(8) Eunap.,
cit.,

Op.

13

what

f.;

P.

N.

pp.

33

cit.,

21

f.

Cheikho;

pp.

I,

(qisra

(18) A double
Later

cortex),

term

(19) Haar

the flesh

Here

atedly).

the

(Arab.),

quotations.

langue

(20) an-nafs
vorjaig, cf. Plato

Dozy,

Suppl.

A.-M.

right;
d'Ibn

philosoph.

an

wdth

is rendered
cf. R.

mantiqiya
Arabes,
2, 684

la

de

term

Greek

On

an-n?tiqa.
Dictionn.

Lexique

4.

of an-nafs
al-man
br?cker's
translation
"
"
soul
is incorrect.
The
speaking
Xoyixrj
Arabus
in Plato
I, 65
right
(repe?
(Arab.)

tiqiya
by
ipv%r} also
nafs
aux

i, 25

Arabus

is employed:
bahimiya
hayaw?nyia.
is usually
found.
An-nafs
"
bestialis
also
Arabus
in Plato
I,

left, with

Goichon,

Sin?,

35.

Suppl.

to vovg and
faql corresponds
i, 58 right
(repeatedly).

al-aqliya;
Arabus

(21) 262, 1 f.
(22) 263,

5.

(23) Op.

cit.,

v. Wilamowitz
"

the

by

Arab

Empedokles
(24) Op.
(25) Bark
Sahrast?nl

in SB AW

cit.,
and

sensu

de

I6, 501

5
(28) 262,
hinted
already

W.

Kranz,

as

Anaximenes:

(D.

500)

The

at

261,

on

362,

in Vorsokr.
36,
= A46.
187a20

76

de

la

right.

Cf.

Ari?

(30) 260, 8 f.
(31) A.-M.
d'Ibn
phique

411

Lexique
f.

langue

philoso

regard
text
and

caused

how

this

Haarbr?cker's
mistake

The

after

and

and

repe?
when
and

cause,
the

than

cause

the
editor

the

than

caused

we

Here

caused,
it ... ".

translator

did

not

mistake.
Arabus,

1,

f. we

261,

is simple

to be

is below

incredible

is caused
18 wa-in

1.

clause.

a caused

to be

fitter

58

(Arab.)

read

is

(al-unsur)
8, but here

261,

simple
restriction

in the

same

right.

that

the

ele?
primeval
statement
Same

(baslt).
is made:
as

way

the

'unsur

first

essence

the

of

term

is
"

that

and

(w?hid
thus

caused
Thus

(murakkab).

the

runsur

conception
into absolutely
divided

to be

vely
simple.
creator.
On

Absolutely
the othei

viz.
immediately,
are only
relatively
with

this.

after

the

simple
what

of

further

therefore,

causes

creator

the

nafs
raql and
(261,
use of murakkab
The

simple.
to
According

the
told

relati?
and
simple
the cause,
is only
the

side,

'unsur,

un?

compounded
of love and

is composed
of
simplicity,

The

struggle.
ought

are
We
creator).
is not
which
exists,

This

"

unique
the essence

indicates

baht)
of the

(and

nothing

it means

thus:

explained

but

caql;

the latter is not absolutely simple {baslt mutlaq).

"

f.),

agrees
comes

261, 3 the compound

On
caused:
nafs.
'unsur,
raql and
simple
case
10
the
the
in
this
'unsur,
caused,
p. 261,
simple
too we have
two diffe?
Here
is himself
compounded.
of one word.
employs
so
different
steps
simple,

As

rent

of

different

the

of

the

are

re?

steps

compounded

cognized.
1

(36) 5, 5,
likewise.

(38) Cf. W.
schen Denker,

f. Cited

P.

by

JAEGER,
161 f.; he
p.

Haarbr?cker
(39) Th.
-h?
in
understand
suffix

following

602.

l12,
Die

the

Moraux;

der

Theologie
a

avoids
tusbihuh?,

fr?hgriechi?

fiovirj.

interpreted

as

decision
by

to

how

the

per?

barks;

but

leaving

untranslated.

in 'alaih?
(41) -h?
more
once
this

can

refer

for
can

to

also

the

the meaning.

also

does

indicate

not

and

spirit
the
change

pith,

interpre?

tation.

is

(42) 262,
divided

12

is divided

like

the
only

f.

into

soul
is

GoiCHON,
Sin?,

ment

but
is

This
is cause,

it is a wrong
word);
"
should
But
translate:

We

18.

is not

(35) Also

86,

funsur-aql-nafs

gradation
2 f.

1.

in 'alaih?
(40) ?h?
no difference
it makes

f.

considered:

of

incomprehensible.
of the conditional

is fitter

the
is

sonal

f.

f.

passage
A
4,

with

already

pith
6 f.

259,

(27) Vorsokr.

Phys.

(still haunted

instance,

In

(37) ?berweg-Praechter

U.

641.

p.

cause

to

30

(29) The

last

by

Approved

1929, p. 641
the

In

").

16.

p.

32.

(26) Theophrastus,
Vorsokr.
I6, 301,

stot.,

f. on

I6, 358

the

cause

overpowering

only

hayaw?niya
"
anima

al-bahlmyta
65
(Arab.)

Plato

cit.,

Op.

(17)The human skin (Hid) stretched upon

=

caused

mixed

"

literally:

f.

39

2,

Ar/fHEiM-STiEH%,

has

102,

pp.

f.

23

Arist.,

Suppl.

remain

(34) Plato
4,

creator.

of

tahtah?,

recognize

Syriaca

the

be

could

interpretation
out
created

separate.
Cureton's

kept

from

the

is

something,
An
".
ap?

about

first part
laisa
delete
(1. 19, 2nd

It

Ai,

31;

is

in the

lies

that

these,

is hardly pleasing;

more

something

of

him...

with

but

all

only.

translation

tition

f.

2,28

be

1. 20

23.

cit.,

Op.

IyYDUS,

(36) as-Sahrast?nl
a bark

cit.,

Op.

Ai/Fheim-StiEh%,

p.

Anecdota

f.; AivTHEiM-STiEHX,

to

and

Agathias
22
f.

Op.

Land,

but
are

f.

6, pp.

adds

. . .

of

something
2: the creator
260,
16-261,
agree with
is not caused.
he himself
Cause
and what

then

see

cit.,

Op.

(14) Priscianus
(ed. i. Bywater).

like

F.

would

was

something

h?dihi kulluh? to huwa

(33) Another
not
that
he

must

p.

and

f.

125

pp.
9

p.

in Orientalia

(12) Ai/Theim-StiEhe,

(15) P.
24 f.
pp.

"

174.

p.

f.; Ai/Theim-STiERX,

follows

ThEim-StiERX,

104

Sassanides2,

I, 253, 18.

(10)Fihrist,

(13) J.

cit..

soph.,

RoSENTHAiy,

(u) On

i,

that

mubdicfa-qat
He
is creator

13 f.

pp.

(9) F.

les

1955,

Op.

245,

sons

not

and

position

F.
Ai/ThEim
compare
und
1954;
Empedokles,

following

Porphyrios
in A7<?w? Rundschau

Ai/fHEiM,

201.

cit.,

Op.

I,

Staat,

p.

i,

L'Jran

(4) Ai/ThEim-Stiehx,
the

cit.,

Op.

christensen,
(3) A.
341 n. 2.

(5) For

asiatischer

ie

Haarbr?cker
translates:
(32) Th.
are he, and
he only,
the totality
they
the
not
out
that
he
created
creator,

As
&dta

the

primeval
and
Nslxog,

in partial
souls.
element
and
primeval

relatively

absolutely
into parts.

simple

Only
simple.
is not
and
and

16

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

element
so
The

the

(al-unsur)
universal

universal

soul,

caused,
everything
"
is
Creator"
the
cannot

be

divided

in RE

(43) Beutler,

P.

like

Moraux,

way

"

(45)

following).

Kmpedocles,
cause
the
with

together

at

in

is

caused
1.

261,

Goichon,
la chaleur

cf.

tative

no.

380

Ka&aojbiol

17, 7-8.

(48) Fr.

17,

16-19.

115,

Vorsokr.

I6,

356,

Vorsokr.

I6,

356,

30

Fr.

115,

(52) Th.

Haarbr?cker

f.

pp.

(55) As
of

(56) Jalaba
"
overpowering

apoc.
must

v.

U.

for

P.

of

by
be

also

the

cit.,

Op.

true

its

meaning

".

(58) 263, 7 f.
out

pointed

35 Vorsokr.
(60) Fr.
sokr.
18.
On
I6, 314,
W.

revolution

jaeger,

the

Aristot.,
Phys.
=
41.
daur
On
?
v.
s.
infr.
KvxXog
114,
1, 111 s. v.

291,

(84) Th.

Haarbr?cker:

(65) We

can

(these

also
love

mens')

(66) Vorsokr.
(67) At

the

pedocles
of
pite
cussed
of

place

an

mar?d,
placed
is missing
and

the whole

his
the

(68) M.

Asin

reprinted

(69) M.

Horten,

(70) M.

Asin

(71) Op.

crucial

cit.,

that

v. Wila

fact
also

place
cf. K.
Reinhardt,

view,

Ibn

Sin?.

that

the

from

the
Op.

It

this

the

meet

time.

the
owe

cannot

The

Ins

passage

souls.

67,

out,

I,

1946,

des

Op.
n.

14.

quence

cit.,

su
pp.

Islam,
pp.

58

p.

pp.

74

(8?) Old

et sagesse

177.

p.

p.

(89) On

Ahiqar

(90) On

8, 3:

1.
p.

1. 3,

1: Aramaic

1957,

In BSOS

226.
on

2, 3:

p.

Die

aram?ische

1 (1959), 92

35

p.

39.

(96) Op.

p.

39.

same

position.

whence

(98) Fragmente

from
the

(99) W.

B.

pp.
N.

(101) In
dokles,

der

p.

f.
pp.

p.

last
cf. U.

Vorsokrati

above

all Diog.

f.

f. Th.

N?LDEKE,

F.

14, 4

(1913),

in BSOS
with

Bd.

1912,

p.

in Abhandl.

l6,

p.

instance
by W.
v. WiiyAMOWiTz,

1.

431,

83.

13, p.
meyer,
123 n.

the

took

22,

p.

Vorsokratiker,

Henning,

the
32;

un?

Sprache

f.

288

der

also
(10?) Incorrect
von Elephantine,
fund

escuela,

the fifth Cen?

of

13 (1949), p. 84.

(92a) Ai/fHEiM-STiEHLS,

cit.,
(97) Op.
Ges. Wiss.

145.

p.

Documents

45.

ter den Achaimeniden

G?tt.

in

J. Friedrich,
f.

reading:
345
pp.

cf.

229;

6.

1: p.

cit.,

Lastly,

1'Assyrien,

d'Ahiqar
f.

205

pp.

Papyri,

Persian2,

correct
is the
(88) This
Orientalia
N.
26
F.
(1957),

"

gi?
se?

f.

cit.,

237.

secondly
Bmpedocles
is disected
into

cit.,

Op.

Histoire

(95) Op.

1-126.

what

Reinhardt,
Nau,

the

clearly

Abenmassarra

and

missing,

pp.

single

not

are

contemporaneous
with
Theophrastus.

cit.,

prophet
who
Creator,

certainly
shows

Escogidas

Philosophie
Pai^acios,

as

(94) Op.

him.

in Obras

up
by
ohooTiovda

the

dis?
In

with
"

be made

passage;
contrast

of

ker

Km

that

add

may
are no

Die
(93) DiEi<S-Kranz,
Fragmente
83 f. gives
the information,
26, pp.
the Suda.
Ivaert.
9, 41 f. and

f.

cited

moreover,
We

verses

de

pietate.
the verses

in
Bmpedoclean
proof
four steps
of the sacrificial
set
custom
first of all
the vSgoanovda
and
Theophrastus;

favour

ves

the

no

is by
verses

de

Theophrastus,
and
2, 26, but

f.

on
s chapter
of: 265,
4-11.

from

It

311.

p.

Bmpedoclean

2, 20

him".

1. 4

cit.,

Op.
the

in

on

(91) On
tury B. C,

their
through
are overcome

is taken
by the
place
liberation
of the partial

Pai,acios,

p.

627.

the

On

f.

other

177.

p.

differences.

we

of

end

like

so

364.

36,

KvxXoi

1,

Arabus,

1950,

enemies

22;

are

origin.

got
Rather
Porphyry.
we
of what
rank

p.

second

no

I6,

is connected with a theory of light that is

of later
clearly
as-Sahrast?ni

1914;

"

spoken
with
similarity

there

12; Plato

2 f. from

as-Sahrast?nf

recurring
at the

Avabus

are

is again

external

above,
the

accomplishes

of

soul

of

taken

(86) Aramaic

173.

p.

his

Vorsokr.

Philol.

"who

278,

end

the

is quoted
2, 20
another
leaf.
Theophrastus,
verse
from the KafiagjuoL

ne

fr. 30;

Plato
1;

4 f.; 419,

to him

on

f. -

20
cf.

translate:

I6,

the

p.

187a

cit.,

op.

latter

1909,

cosmic

the

of
162

are

2, 21

(85) p

15, Vor?

fr.

cf.

f.;

13; 26,

17,

10 f.; cf. 394,

(63) 252,

cit.,

in Class.

Jaeger,

U.

3, 6.

1,1;

(84) K.

renovation

^eqiodoc,

Reinhardt,

(62)w.

27

326,

I6,

abst.

Moraux.

Op.
A 4 p.

Qio?og

(61) K.

P.

by

2, 31.

stand
in

taken

The

Kadaq^ioi.

Moraux.

or
is subj.
as
remarked
by
Cureton,
The
which
is impossible.
masc,
spelling
"
".
summons
be yd'w,
he
Like?
(the prophet)
1. 13 we have
of
to read
instead
yskw3.
yksw

(59) As

18

365,

to

(83) Cf. also BeiiTler,

means
ascertained
that

(57) ycTw'
3 plur.

wise

cit.,

Op.

see

f.

2, 27.

(82)

azk?.

WiiyAMOWiTz,

fragments

out

can

Porphyry
640.
and

(81) 3, 27.

adk?

mistook

by
the

pointed

I6,
point

f.

(53) 263, 3 f.
(54) Compared
646
f. with

Empe?

(78) 2, 21.

(50) 263, 1 f.
(51) Fr.

by
633

pp.

belong

chronological
171
cit., pp.

Kranz,

522.

7,

(76) Vorsokr.

(46) 262, 14 f.
(47) Fr.

cit.,

v. Wii^amowiTz,

(74) U.

in W.

RiTTER

the "citation
Op.

(75) Chil.

665.

H.

f.

89

(73) On

no

has

temperamental
see A.-M.
here
meaning
accepted
"
no.
4
le temperament,
201
cit., p.
Op.
...
l'?me
les mouvements,
naturelle
vege?

see

this

pp.

mowiTz,

translates,

"

of

side

the

the

";

as Haarbt?cker

Natural

meaning
plausible
iaWa
On
in the

(72) On

(cited by

dokles,

"

to

(44) According
no

310 below

22, p.

the

Der

Papyrus

1.
Kranz,
Empe?
in SB AW
1929,

641.
(102) Ai,THEiM-STiEHL,
193 f.

Ein

asiatischer

Staat,

I,

1954,

17

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

sacra, 1958, p. 10?

(m) Ai/Theim-StiKhx, Philologia

3

der Hunnen

f.; Gescliiclite

(104) AivTiiEiM-STiEHiv,
10.

p.

(10B) 305,

(1961),

Porphyrios

36 n.

we

have

we

of the

to

should

the

hope

2-306,

Delia

of

person,
We
cumented.

of Aeschines

first

But

expect

one

a use

he

not
and

of the

withdraws,
yatau

ranka.

Th.

withdraws
be
the

expec?
next

accusative
is not

for ad?

asked

for

form

if with

(even
the

changed
It is

sentence.

as

suffixes)

in the

two
unlikely
same
occur
so
of the
form
should
spelling
near
to each
the scribe misunder?
unless
other,

the

of

But

text.

how

would

translates:

Haarbr?cker

he
"

that

have
he

does

interpreted
the same

it?

without us being able to follow the trend of his thought.

p.

(m) ParkER-DtjbbERSTEIN,
17 f.
with
data
(112) The
1. under
2.
374

F.

Babylonian

IuSTi,

Chronology,

Iranisches

Namenbuch,

1895,

(113)On

private

first thought is of t?'a (a) "to go

"
Also

stood

we

whom

scholar,
a mistake

of

for
yatauka
(yt'wk
But
the
inter?
of wati'a.
imperfect
an Acc.
becomes
difficult.
verb
with
The
"
means
makes
maltraiter,
pillerwhich
it added
Be
the same
that we would
have

part
different

further

Vida.

contrary.
from which
would

16 f.)

pp.

finding

to

translation

yat?'uka
it should
would
This
give:
one
follow
should
somebody,
the

work

the
efficacious;
prove
20 seems
to be valuable.

will

correct

the

(among
come

the

Arabic,

fragments
section
305,

to with-draw

day
of the

attention

by
learning
to fragments
reference

(110)yfwk. The
you
that

ourselves)

Perhaps

owe
(109) ^e
letter
of G. Levi

ted

cit.,

(Porphyrios und Empedocles,

nobody.

Democritean

away,
from

Op.

philosophy
has
hitherto

on,

carry

with Sphettos

whole

count

not

drew

repeatedly
of Greek

scholar

begun.

seduced

the

Arabic

thought
an
thus

verbal
with

agreement
versions:

closely

do
to

famous

personae
no sense.

10.

forward
we

Empedokles,

ytwk),

22.

p.

(108) Although
no
Sahrast?nl,
whom

vice,

pretation

the
remarked
only
(107) He
and
Armenian
Slavonian
Syriac,
p.

und

f.

f. Cureton.

cit.,

(106) Op.

126

him

see W.

VETTER

was

of

remark
unnoticed
(m) This
on Theophrastus
in
article
the
(115) Peculiarly
la-hum

(fa-hum,
we would

apply

in RE

6 A, 581 f.

the
by
the RE.

author

is the
alternance
of -hum
striking
1. 17) and -h?
1. 18).
In itself,
(la-h?
to men
-hum
rather
and
-h?
to the

stars.

do?
1532

(116) In the
f.

last

instance

Regenbogen

18

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:24:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in RE.

Suppl.

7.