The Chronography of Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle
Empedocles postulated a universe which is characterized by cyclical oscillations between states of hegemony of, respectively, Love and Strife over the four elements, earth, water, air and fire. However, in which way these states of hegemony concretely shape the cosmic cycle is debated. It is controversial, for instance, how many different phases the cycle encompasses. Some Byzantine scholia to Aristotle’s Physics, On Generation and Corruption and On the Heavens, give us several indications to approach this question anew, by providing a Byzantine chronography of Empedocles’ cosmic cycle.[1]
In their most recent edition in 2014, these scholia are interpreted as offering elements for an Empedoclean picture of the cycle featuring three cosmic phases: the Sphairos, lasting 40 chronoi, and two phases of respectively increasing Love and increasing Strife, lasting 60 chronoi each.
In contrast, by presenting a fresh analysis of the most relevant scholia, my paper aims to show that the Byzantine chronography reads Empedocles’ cycle as an alternation of two major cosmic phases, lasting 60 chronoi each: one period of rest under Love’s hegemony (the Sphairos) and one period of movement under Strife. In contrast to major opinion, I will show that the scholia attribute to the Sphairos the time duration of 60, rather than 40, chronoi. Indeed, they leave no room for the assumption of a third phase lasting 40 chronoi, intervening between Strife’s and Love’s phase.
In conclusion, I will demonstrate that the Byzantine reading of Empedocles’ cycle fundamentally challenges the alleged idea of Empedocles’ symmetry as two symmetrical phases of increasing Love and Strife and invites us to rethink Empedocles’ cycle in its entirety.
Essential Bibliography
Primavesi, O. 2005 “The Structure of Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle: Aristotle and the Byzantine Anonymous.” In Pierris, A. ed. 2005. The Empedoclean Cosmos: Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. Patras: 245-64.
———. 2006 “Die Suda über die Werke des Empedokles.” ZPE 158: 61-75.
———. 2016 “Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle and the Pythagorean Tetractys.” Rhizomata 4(1): 5-29
Rashed, M. 2001 “La Chronographie du système d’Empédocle: Documents byzantins inédits.” Aevum Antiquum n.s. 1: 237-59.
———.2014 “La Chronographie du Système d’Empédocle: Addenda er Corrigenda.” Les Études philosophiques 110 (2014): 315-42.
Sedley, D. 2005 “Empedocles’ Life Cycles.” In Pierris, A. ed. 2005. The Empedoclean Cosmos: Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. Patras: 331-71.
———. 2007 Creationism and his Critics in Antiquity. Berkeley-Los Angeles.
[1] Their discovery was announced by Rashed 2001, who also provided their first edition. Primavesi 2006 offered a new edition upon a fresh autopsia of the manuscripts in Florence. The text of the scholia for the present study is provided by the new edition of Rashed 2014. Here Rashed identifies and edits ten scholia that are related to Empedocles’ cosmic cycle and its chronography: Σ.a, Σ.b, Σ.c, Σ.d, Σ.e, Σ.f, Σ.g, Σ.h, Σ.i, Σ.j. Of these, Σ.a, Σ.b, Σ.c, Σ.d and Σ.e are scholia on Phys. VIII; Σ.f, Σ.g, Σ.i and Σ.j are scholia on Gen. et Corr. I. Σ.h is a scholion on De Caelo II.
The most recent reconstruction of Empedocles’ cycle by Primavesi 2016 presupposes Rashed’s interpretation of the scholia, which the German scholar defines as “entirely convincing” (at p. 13). For a different reading of the scholia, see Sedley 2005: 352-5 and 2007: 67-70.