1

Muthos and Logos:

Mythical themes and structures
in the Philosophy of Empedocles
...with Empedocles -[this Pythagorean philosophy] had
become well and truly Bacchic" (Plutarch, De gen. Socr.
580c)

The relationship between muthos1 and logos2 in the theogonies and

cosmologies of Ancient Greece range from the relatively straightforward mythos of
anthropormorphic gods of Homer and Hesiod to the rejection of muthos in favour of
strict logos adopted by Aristotle. During that period, there was a complex, dynamic
interaction between muthos and logos as a nascent rational tendency was emerging
with the birth of philosophy.3 It has been observed that Greek myths, in Homer and
Hesiod, for example, function according to a coherent system of thinking. The
premises that they are based on (albeit not founded on rational logic) follow a
consistent logical pattern (Adkins 95-103).4 Many comparative structuralist-oriented
schools of mythological theory have demonstrated the structural coherence of
myths from a symbolic perspective, be it from a social, psychological, or theological
interpretation.5
Hesiods Theogony, essentially a muthos, can be seen to demonstrate a
coherent effort at assembling and organizing narrative material to form a

In the context of this paper, the definition for muthos will be: fantastic narrative.
In the context of this paper, the definition for logos will be: rational explanation.
3
For an analysis of the relationship between poetry and philosophy during this period, see part I of Cornfords
Principium Sapientiae.
4
From the linguistic perspective, Raymond Adolph Prier recognizes a form of logic based on the grammatical
structures of Presocratic thinking and poetry such as the HomericHymns. Taking the symbolic logic theories of
Ernst Cassirer, he notices a symbolic dyadic structure based on notions of opposites and a unifying third term. He
calls this Archaic Logic.
5
For a discussion of several leading mythical theorists such as Ernst Cassirer, Claude Lvi-Strauss, Sigmund Freud,
and Carl Jung, see Kirks Myth Its meaning and function, pp. 261-85.
2

comprehensive explanation of the world.6 7 Cornford has compared Hesiods

Theogony with the structure of the first book of Genesis (199-200).8
Genesis

Hesiod

1- Earth without form and void,

darkness on face of the deep, spirit
of God moved on face of waters,
light appeared, divided from
darkness as day and night
2- Heaven as roof to divide
heavenly waters, rain
3- Dry land separated from seas,
grass and trees

Earth and Eros, then Night gave birth to

Day

Earth generates Heaven as set for

gods, shell of world-egg
Earth generates hills and sea (Note that
Empedocles made the trees, the first
living creatures, spring up from the
earth like embryos in the mothers
womb, before the sun existed
4- Sun, moon, stars created to
Earth and Eros, then Night gave birth to
divide day and night, seasons, days, Day In Greek cosmogonies heavenly
years
bodies are formed later than the earth
5- Waters bring forth the moving
In Anaximander, action of the suns
creatures
heat on moisture reproduce in physical
terms Hesiods marriage of heaven and
Earth.
6- Male and female created to be
fruitful
Pherekydes theogony (ca. 550 B.C.) demonstrates a capacity for
independent creative thinking in reformulating mythical material from various
sources in an original way (Kirk, Raven & Schofield 71). The Spartan poet Alcman

At all events Hesiod, treating all these deities as intelligent and anthropomorphic, and linked by bonds formed by
blood, marriage, and political alliance, constructs in the Theogony, when combined with the Works and Days, a
framework within which the whole of the visible world, and anything which happens to anyone in that world, can
be explained. I do not seek to persuade my readers that Hesiod is an unappreciated philosopher, simply that
sustained intellectual effort in the interest of synthesis and comprehensible order maybe expended by those who are
not philosophers (Adkins103).
7
Tate maintains that conceptual perspectives are no less embodied in mythical narrative than in philosophical
assertion. These narratives could not take the form that they do unless truth were conceived fundamentally as a
ground, an aition, a lighting up of context that makes possible speaking and being (58).
8
The process is the same as in Greek cosmogonies-separation or differentiation out of a primitive confusion. As
measured by the absence of personifications, Genesis I is less mythical than Hesiod, and even closer to the
rationalized system of the Milesians (Cornford 200).

(600 BC) presents a theogonic poem that has more abstract concepts related to the
formation of primal substances (47-48).
With the emergence of Presocratic philosophy, beginning with the Milesian
school, theogonical speculation gives way to natural cosmological speculation.
However the muthos of the theogonies and the logos of the Presocratics, in certain
instances were not mutually incompatible. The example of the Derveni papyrus has
an Orphic cosmogony accompanied by exegetical commentary containing physical
explanations in terms reminiscent of Anaximander, Diogenes and Heraclitus (Laks
126-27). The Theogony is therefore viewed as an allegory that contains explanations
of the causes of natural phenomena.9 With the Presocratic philosophers, much of the
mythical aspects have been eschewed, yet prevalent mythical structures and
religious conceptions remain.10
The gods are no longer portrayed as anthropomorphic but rather are
perceived as creative and active natural forces and substances. It could be
considered that there subsisted a basic world view generally adopted by most of the
Presocratics that reflected an established mythically-influenced world view. 11
According to Aristotle, "this (elementary matter), they say, is the divine; for it is
immortal and indestructible, as Anaximander and most of the natural philosophers
maintain." (3Phys. iii. 4. 203 b I3. 91 qtd. in Guthrie 91).

His physics, philosophically refined as it may be, is minimalist, because it is subordinated to a theological thesis
that culminates in the affirmation of divine rationality. This by itself would be enough, I think, to explain why the
Derveni author could be led to assume that the Orphic theogony and Presocratic philosophy were saying the same
thing, and to understand the use he makes of allegory (Laks 138)
10
And there are in fact significant precedents in early Greek thought for such a mixture of mystery religion with
natural philosophy. Pythagoras himself seems to have borrowed the outlines of his cosmology from the Milesian
physicists. We find elemental physics crossed with mystic immortality in the doctrine of Heraclitus that we live the
death of the gods and they live our death. (b77 b62) The metaphysics and the cosmology of Parmenides are cast in
the form of a supernatural vision vouchsafed him on a journey to the realm of Light (Kahn 427).
11
According to Tate, Pre-Socratic cosmologies are clearly developed from these earlier cosmologies, which they
resemble structurally.The divine agencies in these earlier cosmologies have simply been replaced by the more
"conceptual" agencies of Love, Hate, Nous, the Unlimited, and so on. (51).

Furthermore, one can notice a form of pantheism in the doctrines of the

Milesians and Heraclitus, similar to the pantheism found in Orphism;12 moreover
their theories are commonly constructed on analogies with human social and
political functions;13 and there appears to be a common presence of some form of
divine mind, related to air and fire.14 Cornford, in analysing the cosmology of
Anaximander, posits a basic structure common to all Ionian cosmological theory
(189):15
(1)In the beginning there is a primal Unity, a state of indistinction or fusion in
which factors that will later become distinct are merged together.
(2)Out of this Unity emerge, by separation, pairs of opposite things or powers;
the first being the hot and the cold, then the moist and the dry. This
separating out finally leads to the disposition of the great elemental masses
constituting the world-order, and the formation of the heavenly bodies.
(3)The Opposites interact or reunite, in meteoric phenomena and in the
production of individual living things, plants and animals. 16

12

The pantheistic character of this conception of Zeus is obvious. My conclusion is that the Milesians and
Orphics shared a pantheisitic idea and combined it with a "historical view" of the universe: pantheism was
cosmogonical in the Milesians and theogonical in the Orphics (Finkelberg 325). The doctrine of Heraclitus, like
that of the Milesians, is cosmogonical pantheism (328).
13
The cosmology of Empedocles shares with its predecessors, the cosmologies of Ananximander or Heraclitus, a
feature characteristic of all Greek cosmological thought: the interpretation of natural processes by means of
analogies taken from mans political and social life (Jaeger 139).
14
If I do not see the need to associate myself with the accusation, it is because the doctrine in question is one
which we have already found in such diverse pre-Platonic thinkers as Anaximenes, the Orphics and Diogenes of
Apollonia, and could find also (on Aristotle's testimony) in Democritus; the doctrine, namely, that there is an
immortal mind-stuff of which mortal creatures acquire a tincture by breathing it in either as air itself or with the air.
Heraclitus, then, said Sextus (Diels-Kranz A i6, vol. i, p. I48), held that "what surrounds us" is rational and endowed
with mind, and this divine reason (logos), according to him, we draw in by breathing and thus become thinking
creatures ourselves(Guthrie 96).
15
Hence Aristotle assigns Anaximander to the second class,who say that, out of their unity, the Opposites
contained in it are separated out as Anaximander says (phesi).This class also contains the pluralists who came
after, such as Empedocles and Anaxagoras. These start with a plurality of distinct things in a single mixture, in
which they were -separated out- (161).
16
Similarly Bollack sees a five-part structure in Empedocles cosmological system : 1-Being in its integrity and
perfection (the sphere); 2- Rupture of the unity of the sphere; 3- The origin of the world: the phase of separation; 4Return to the One: the birth of mixture; 5- The period of mixtures: the composition of life. Return to the One. (173)

With Empedocles, the qualities of a creative religious, mytho-poetic

imagination fluent in Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and Parmenides allies itself with a
rational mind keenly interested in understanding the natural world :
The first condition for an understanding of Empedocles is to banish the
notion of a gulf between religious beliefs and scientific views. His work is a
whole, in which religion, poetry, and philosophy are indissolubly united. His
imagination is constructive, gathering elements from every available quarterHesiodic and Ionian cosmogony, Parmenidean rationalism, Orphic mysticism,
poetic legend, the experience of a physician, a poets sensuous response to
the sights and sounds of mature, and the fears and hopes of a spirit exiled
from heaven for a brief span of life that is not life- but building all these
elements together into a unitary vision of the life of the world and the
destiny of the human soul, bound, like the macrocosm, upon the wheel of
birth and death (Cornford 122).
To give an idea of how Empedocles articulates the elements of muthos and
logos in his system,17 eleven fragments have been chosen in an attempt to illustrate
the basic aspects of his system:18
1- For if, immortal muse, for the sake of any ephemeral creature, [it has
pleased you] to let our concerns pass through your thought, answer my

17

Seen against this background, Empedocles procedure can be described as follows: he combines, within one and
the same poem, the two established poetical modes of referring to the divine, that is, both the mythological and the
philosophical one, so that they are mirrored in each other (Primavesi 257).
18
Pierris gives an interesting structural guideline: Religion, philosophy and physics or, in alternative
formulation, dimensions of awareness first mythological/symbolic, second metaphysical/speculative and third
scientific /experiential must be kept in unison, considered as forming an integral of the manifestation of being, of
the revelation of the hidden in reality (189).

prayers again now, Calliopeia, as I reveal a good discourse about the

blessed gods (131, Inwood 215)
It is traditional among poets to call to the Muses (the nine goddesses who
presided over the arts, governed by Apollo). Calliopeia is the muse who presides
over epic poetry. Like Parmenides, Empedocles adopts the traditional religious
esthetics to present his philosophy in poetic form. 19 A formal cult dedicated to the
Muses became an active feature in the schools of Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus (possibly)
and in the later Neoplatonist schools.20
221- Eudemus understands the immobility to apply to the Sphere in the
supremacy of Love, when all things are combined there neither are the
swift limbs of the sun distinguished, but, as he says, thus It is held fast in
the close obscurity of Harmonia, a rounded sphere rejoicing in its joyous
solitude. But as Strife begins to win supremacy once more, then once more
motion occurs in the Sphere: For one by one all the limbs of the god began
to quiver. (27, 31) 295
The Sphere/Harmony Love Strife threefold conception forms the heart of
Empedocles metaphysical system. Love represents the force of unity of bringing
things together, mixing the four elements22 to form the universe. In Hesiods

19

From the very beginning we have stressed the fact that there is no unbridgeable gulf between early Greek poetry
and the rational sphere of philosophy. The rationalization of reality began even in the mythical world of Homer and
Hesiod, and there is still a germ of productive mythopoetic power in the Milesians fundamentally rational
explanation of nature. In Empedocles this power is by no means diminished by the increasingly complex apparatus
of his rational thought, but seem to increase proportionally, as if striving to counteract the force of rationalism and
redress the balance (Jaeger 133).
20
See Boyancs Le culte des muses chez les philosophes grecs : tudes d'histoire et de psychologie religieuse.
21
Reference to the fragments will follow the Diels-Kranz numbering, with page numbering from Kirk, Raven
&Schofield.
22
Aristotle remarks that one might suspect that the need for a moving cause was first felt by Hesiod and by
whoever else posited love or desire as a principle among things, for example Parmenides, on the ground that there
must exist some cause which will move things and draw them together, (sunaxei, Met. A4, 984b 23). The Love of
Empedocles has the same function of uniting unlike or opposite elements. Aristotle was not slow to recognize the
mythical or poetical antecedents of philosophical concepts (Cornford 196).

Theogony, Eros is present as one of the first gods (120), with the implicit recognition
that the erotic function plays an important cosmological role (Hershbell 153).
The notion that Strife, causing separation and dissolution of the elements, in
a cyclical movement following loves mixing together, is present in Hesiods Works
and Days (11-26) as a significant force in humanitys social life. Proclus (238) relates
the action of Empedocles strife to the war of the Titans in Hesiods Theogony. A
certain resemblance of Love and Strife and the relationship between Aphrodite and
Ares in Homeric myth is perhaps noticeable. They are said to have had a daughter
named Harmonia. The relation to the Homeric myth had been noted by the ancient
mythographer Heraclitus (ca. 1st c. AD):
For Homer seems to confirm the dogmas of the Sicilian school and the doctrine of
Empedocles by calling strife (neikos) Ares and love (philia) Aphrodite. And he brings
them into his poem, though they were originally at variance, united together after
their ancient rivalry (philoneikia) in one accord. So with good reason Harmonia was
born from these two since everything was joined together (harmosthenai) tranquilly
and harmoniously (Trzaskoma, Smith, & Brunet 119).

Burkert notices a resemblance to a mythical dualism from Iranian

mythology.23 Empedocles uses the image of limbs repeatedly, evoking a certain
anthropomorphic reference. The activation of limbs possibly refers to the
manifestation of physical elements, the material world thus being equated with
embodiment.

23

As for the Presocratics, it is Empedocles who is developing a kind of dualism, as he explains what is going on in
nature b the antagonism of two principles or gods, Philia and Neikos, the one positive and sympathetic, the other
absolutely negative, disastrous, hateful. And Empedocles makes the conflict a battle, regulated by predestined time,
with Neikos jumping up to take the rule in the fulfillment of time(B30). This is a piece of mythology that
seems to be unnecessary in the system: modern interpreters would prefer to have continuous interaction between the
two principles, instead of the phases of a cycle and a sudden jump to power. Has it been motivated by the
Zoroastrian myth, the attack of Angra Mainyu on Ahura Mazda? (Burkert 74).

3- For he is not furnished with a human head upon limbs, nor do two
branches spring from his back, he has no feet, no nimble knees, no shaggy
genitals, but he is mind alone, Holy and beyond description, darting through
the whole cosmos with swift thoughts. (134, 312)
The presence of a divine mind is evoked and the non-anthropomorphic
aspect is emphasized, possibly in contradistinction to the traditional Homeric myth.
It is given a certain descriptive characterization, perhaps evoking the god Hermes.
Primavesi posits the Empedocles is referring to Apollo. 24
4- Hear first the four roots of all things: shining Zeus, life-bringing Hera,
Aidoneus and Nestis who with her tears waters mortal springs. (6, 286)
And earth chanced in about equal quantity upon these, Hephaestos, rain,
and gleaming air, anchored in the perfect harbours of Cypris, either a little
more of it or less of it among more of them. From these arose blood and the
various forms of flesh. (98, 302)
Theophrastus distributes the elemental qualities to the gods thus:
Zeus
Fire

Hera
Air

Aidoneus
(Hades)
Earth

Nestis
(Persephone)
Water

The anthropomorphism of spiritual powers changes to personification of

spiritual substances. In general, the elements are related to traditional attributes of
the corresponding divinity.25 Moreover, there is a male/female oppositional
polarization, that is so important in Empedocles system. Zeus and Hera form a
24

Unlike the case of the four pre masses, a mythical name of the remaining long-lived gods, that is the Sphairos,
has not been preserved within the surviving fragments themselves. But the introductory comment of Ammonius on
B134 pre-supposes that Empedocles designated the Sphairos quite unambiguously as Apollo (Primavesi 258).
25
The four elements have their basic distinguishing names, for example, fire or water. In addition, they can take
on the names given to deities in the traditional belief systems; they are the equivalents of those deities, absorbing
the representations of the power that had been attached to gods (Bollack 55).

couple; and if the Sicilian tradition of equating Nestis with Persephone is considered
(Kingsley 382), the couple of Hades and Persephone is established. Another
contrasting opposition, between celestial couple and underworld couple, could be
observed.
The elements of Empedocles are said to each have their own domain. This
notion can be seen in part in Homeric myth, where the three brothers Zeus,
Poseidon and Hades preside over the celestial, terrestrial, and underworld regions
respectively.26
5- There were Earth and far-seeing Sun, bloody Discord and Serene
Harmonia, Beauty and Ugliness, Haste and Tarrying, lovely Truth and blind
Obscurity. (122)
Here is an enumeration of cosmogonic elements in Empedocles account of
the universe, and there is a certain personification. There are similar lists of
conceptual personifications in Hesiod Theogony, for example, the progeny of Night
(211-40), the main difference being that Empedocles presents them as opposites,
thus furnishing a philosophical sense of balance into his system.
6- There is an oracle of Necessity, ancient decree of the gods, eternal, sealed
with broad oaths: when anyone sins and pollutes his own limbs with
bloodshed, who by his error makes false the oath he swore spirits whose
portion is long life for thrice ten thousand years he wanders apart from the
blessed, being born throughout that time in all manner of forms of mortal
things, exchanging one hard path of life for another, The force of the air
pursues him into the sea, the sea spews him out onto the floor of the earth,
the earth cast him into the rays of the blazing sun, and the sun into the

26

Each is a master in a different province and each has its own character(B17.28)

10

eddies of the air; one take him from the other, but all abhor him, Of these I
too am now one an exile from the gods and a wanderer, having put my trust
in raving Strife. (115, 315)27
Necessity is presented as a philosophical principle in the Universe and is here
given a certain personification, as it has an active agency, delivering oracles to the
gods. The exile of the daimon (spirit) is due to an original sin. Symbolically, the fall
represents the incarnation of the soul in the material world, a fall from grace.

28

The

fall is a mythical/religious notion, one can think of the fall of Lucifer (Isa. 14:12-14).
This notion is closely related to the notion of original sin; one can think of the fall of
Adam in Genesis (3:1-24)29, and also the story of Cain and Abel (4:1-16). Elements
are present in the myth of Prometheus, as well, in a story where humanity once
dined at the gods banquet table (Harris & Platzner 109). Here Empedocles mythical
presentation is integrated into his system as the individual immerses them in the
elements in the process of falling, and Strife is seen as an agent of this process of
incarnation. Cornford compares the process of transformation into each of the
elements with transformation motifs in Celtic mythology. 30 Primavesi terms this
concept in Empedocles as the cycle of the guilty god.31

27

This personification of destructive forces is similar to Hesiods Theogony(211-226) : I wept and wailed when I
saw the unfamiliar place where Murder and Anger and tribes of other Deaths they (sc. The daimones) wander in
darkness over the meadow of Doom. (118, 121)
28
A divine potency stripped, for an aeon, of his divine identity: this is the Empedoklean daimon (Zuntz 271).
29
Osborne briefly compares the fall of the daimon with the fall of Adam (294).
30
For example, in the Welsh Book of Taliesin: I have been a journey (?), I have been an eagle, I have been a sea
coracle I have been a sword in the hand, I have been a shield in battle, I have been a string in harp(122).
31
As soon as Apollos mortal incarnations are identified as the paradigm of thecycle of the guilty god, we
observe striking parallels between that cycle and the myth told about Apollo in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women
and alluded to by Aeschylus: Asclepius, Apollos son by Coronis, had used his healing powers to restore the dead to
life, and for this had been blasted to death by the thunderbolt of Zeus, forged by the Cyclopes. Apollo in revenge
killed the Cyclopes, and was sentenced by Zeus to a term of penance as serf to a mortal, Admetus. After that, he
returns to the other Olympians (Primavesi 262).

11

7- Empedocles held that the first generations of animals and plants were not
complete but consisted of separate limbs not joined together; the second,
arising from the joining of these limbs, were like creatures in dreams; the
third as the generation of whole-natured forms; and the fourth arose no
longer from the homogenous substances such as earth or water, but by
intermingling, in some cases as the result of the condensation of their
nourishment, in others because feminine beauty excited the sexual urge; and
the various species of animals were distinguished by the quality of the
mixture in them (96, 303)
The notion of multiple generations of evolution is akin to the mythical notion
of the five ages found in Hesiods Works and Days (110-202). Cornford and West
consider Empedocles explanation of sexual generation to be related to the mythical
theme of the splitting of an original bi-sexed figure (208).

32 33

The evolution of plants

and animals (and conceivably humans) in Empedocles follows certain stages that
are significantly distinctive one from the other.34
8- Among them was no war-god Ares worshipped, nor the battle-cry, nor was
Zeus king nor Kronos nor Poseidon, but Cypris was queen. Her they
propitiated with holy images, with paintings of living creatures, with
perfumes of various fragrances and sacrifices of pure myrrh and sweet-

32

The Zohar, whether independently or not, has here presented the myth of the separation of male and female by
the splitting of an original bisexed figure, parallel to the separation of Father-Heaven and Mother-Earth from a
single form. This myth lies behind Aristophanes speech in the Symposium and Empedocles whole-natured forms,
which, in the period of world-formation by strife, are divided into two sexes (Cornford 208).
33
According to Empedocles (B62, 63) the sexes were produced by division of whole-natured creatures, who
were themselves evolved from earlier forms of life. According to the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, 1.4. 1-3, the
universe began as the Self in human form. He was lonely and bored. Now he was the size of a man and a woman
in close embrace. He split this Self in two, and from this arose husband and wife (West 235).
34
We may recall that Empedocles indeed associated the two halves of the plant with specific elements and
motions: he took fire to be a component of the green part of the plant, earth of its root, the two elements accounting
for the respective motions upward and downward. (In relation to Anaximander, Empedocles of course inverted
explicandum and explanans(Freudenthal 215).

12

scented frankincense, throwing to the ground libation soft yellow honey. The
altar was not drenched by the unspeakable slaughters of bulls, but this was
held among men the greatest defilement to tear out the life from noble
limbs and eat them. (128, 318)
In this example, the comparison to Hesiods five ages is more explicit.
Reference to Hesiods first period, the Age of Gold is alluded to (111-125). 35
Here Empedocles contrasts the traditional mythological and religious
conceptions with his own views of religious purity, the prohibition of blood
sacrifice related to his eschatological conception.
9- Many creatures were born with faces and breasts on both sides, manfaced ox-progeny, while others again sprang forth as ox-headed offspring of
man, creatures compounded partly of male partly of the nature of female,
and fitted with shadowy parts. (61, 304)
This notion of monstrous creatures at a primitive period of evolution has
echoes in the Cyclops, Titans, and Giants in Hesiods Theogony. Various half-human,
half-animal creatures can be found in Greek mythology, such as the Centaurs and
the Minotaur. Empedocles is giving a natural history account, but he seems to make
allusion to mythical concepts when describing more primitive phases in his scheme.
Another early phase of human development, contains a notion present in mythology,
humans being born from the earth, for example in the myth of Deucalion (Harris &
Platzner 125):
Come now, hear how fire as it was separated raised up the nocturnal shoots of me
and pitiable women: it is no erring nor ignorant tale. Whole-natured shapes first
sprang up from the earth, having a portion of both water and heat. There fire sent
35

The myth is recast in the light of that interpretation. Hesiods narrative of the Golden and the following Ages
provided the basic concept of progressive deterioration and is called to mind by characteristic details both material
and verbal (Zuntz 259).

13

up. Wishing to come to its like: they did not yet display the desirable form of limbs
nor voice, which is the part proper to men (62, 304).

10- Her must you contemplate with your mind, and sit with eyes dazed: she
it is who is thought innate even in mortal limbs, because of her they think
friendly thoughts and accomplish harmonious deeds, calling her Joy by name
and Aphrodite. She is perceived by no mortal man as she circles among
them: but you must listen to the undeceitful ordering of my discourse. (17,
289-90)36
Love, Philotetes, so important in Empedocles system, is seen to display
noticeable characteristics of Aphrodite, as her powers of mixture are shown to act in
the human sphere. There are parallels in Hesiods Theogony (205), were Aphrodite is
seen to influence the life of humans (Hershbell 153).
11- But at the end they come among men on earth as prophets, bards,
doctors, and princes; and thence they arise as gods highest in honour,
sharing with the other immortals their hearth and their table, without part in
human sorrows or weariness. (146, 317)
In the salvation aspect of Empedocles eschatological concept, mankind must
free himself from the cycle of reincarnations by purification until one becomes divine
oneself and rejoins the gods.37 This possibly indicates Orphic38 and Pythagorean
36

Another reference to Cypris demonstrates her demiurgic role, fashioning the human eye with a mixture of
elements: As when someone planning a journey through the wintry night prepares a light, a flame of blazing fire,
kindling for whatever the weather a linen lantern, which scatters the breath of the winds when they blow, but the
finer light leaps through outside and shines across the threshold with unyielding beams, so at that time did she give
birth to the round eye, primeval fire confined with membranes and delicate garments, and these held back the deep
water that flowed around, but they let through the finer fire to the outside (84, 3-8).
37
The impact of destructive Neikos upon the supramundane realm of the gods; expulsion of the transgressor, who
forfeits his divine status and cut off from his heavenly origin, must undergo toil upon toil, but finally, on completing
his penance, is readmitted to his primordial demesne: it is evident that here is the inspiration for Empedokles' myth
of the destiny of man. The banished god described by Hesiod is Man; all men are banished gods (Zuntz 267).
38
This is what we must bear in mind if we are to understand why the Orphic beliefs are significant for
Empedocles. His view of nature is by no means purely physical. It contains an element of eschatology such as
always accompanies the idea of a paradise lost or divine primal state (Jaeger 143).

14

influence, but the notion of achieving immortality is also present in Greek

mythology. Humans, Heroes, and Gods are considered to be a gradation of
progressively higher beings. Heroes such as Heracles, can, by overcoming a series of
obstacles, achieve divine status (Vernant 122).
Overall, starting from the religious point of view, Empedocles system is
characterized by a creative pantheism. The Sphere, Love, Strife, Harmony, the
Daimon are all semi-personified divine entities that inherently reflect mythical
characteristics.39 Love presides over every phase of creation by mixture. She models
and guides creation and is an omnipresent active force. Moreover, his theory of time
is essentially a mythical/religious one.40 The manifested universe is circumscribed in
cycles of creation and destruction with an oracular definiteness.

41,42

There is an

eschatology that involves human destiny in a return to a primal pure unity. 43

From the philosophical perspective, he uses common archaic conceptions
such as like is attracted to like, the correspondence between macrocosm and
microcosm,44 and a comprehensive theory of opposites, a common Presocratic
39

The Love and Strife of Empedocles and the Mind of Anaxagoras are cosmic powers, and they many be called
philosophic gods, though once more there is no suggestion that they should be worshipped or should oust the
popular divinities (Cornford 151).
40
In referring to the myth of recurrent cosmic cycles, Eliade observes: This myth was still discernibly present in
the earliest pre-Socratic speculations. Anaximander knows that all things are born and return to the apeiron.
Empedocles conceives of the alternate supremacy of the two opposing principles philia and neikos as explaining the
eternal creations and destructions of the cosmos (a cycle in which four phases are distinguishable, somewhat after
the fashion of the four incalculables of Buddhist doctrine). The universal conflagration is, as we have seen also
accepted by Heraclitus (Eliade 120).
41
The conception of the behaviour of the seasonal powers in the cycle of time is applied by Empedocles to the
strife of his four elements in the order of space: For all these are equal and coeval; but each has a different
prerogative (time) and its own character and ways (ethos can mean haunts, character, habits), and they prevail
in turn in the revolution in time.(Cornford 168).
42
In Empedocles, again, there appears the notion of a Great Year, in which worlds are generated and destroyed by
two alternating and opposite processes (Cornford 184).
43
It is precisely this parallel between the roles of Love and Strife in the two poems that constitutes the real link
between them, and the fundamental principle of unity in Empedocles thought. He seems to be insisting that the
same powers prevail in the destiny of the universe and in that of man. And just as the physical Sphere suggests a
supernatural harmony, so the element of Love in mortal compounds seems to stand as a physical representative for
the exiled daimon (Kahn 445).
44
For example, Primavesi points out the correspondence between the cyclical evolution of the universe and the
cycle of individual evolution: This means that in order to bring out the parallelism suggested by Empedocles, we

15

notion. He takes up the Eleatic problems the unity of being and posits an unlimited
notion of existence (Kirk, Raven, Schofield 288).
In terms of physics, his cosmological theories make use of certain mythic
structures. The primal unity of the sphere that is torn asunder by strife to begin
manifestation bears resemblance to the primal separation in cosmogonic schemes
(Kirk, Raven, Schofield 43). His speculation on primitive stages of evolution seem to
have mythical influences; whereas when dealing with the natural world and
physiological process, he is at his most materialistic and naturalistic. 45
Possibly one of the reasons why Empedocles is able to integrate mythical
notions into his natural system is that there is a certain valid structural consistency
to archaic mythological conceptions. Using a symbolic language, he is able to
replace anthropomorphic beings with natural forces because certain underlying
qualities of mythical concepts are maintained. According to Primavesi:
The obvious answer is that Empedocles is drawing on a method of decoding the
Homeric gods that had been current in the Greek West since the sixth century BCE:
according to this method, attested already for Theagenes of Rhegium, the Homeric
gods represent the basic entities of the physical universe, like elementary qualities
or the elements themselves. Thus, the traditional anthropomorphic design of these
gods is red-defined as a mere surface under which a deeper, physical level of
meaning has been hiding all the time. (Primavesi 257)

have to choose the Sphairos as a starting point on the physical side. We may say, then, that the rule of the Sphairos
corresponds to the happy state of the god within the community of the blessed ones, the destruction of the Sphairos
to his crime and departure, the movement towards complete separation to his punishment, and the movement toward
complete unity to this return (Primavesi 263).
45
The mythical law mirrors the physical theory in away that brings out its impact from a human perspective; it
shows the ethical implications of the physical theory by evaluating the different stages of the cosmic cycle.
Empedocles ethics is grounded in his physical theology as elucidated in the myth of the guilty god (Primavesi
269).

16

His system gives evidence of a dynamic interplay between muthos and

logos (or the mystical and the rational).46 Functioning on the principal of the creative
power of Love, he develops a paradoxical system of harmony by opposition where
muthos and logos, imagination and reason are not contradictory and mutually
exclusive.47 The dynamic interplay of Dionysian and Apollonian forces, so prevalent
in Greek thinking are integrated in a global system of dynamic harmony.

46

Regarding rationalist and mystic as contrasting and mutually exclusive terms, we are apt to classify our Greeks
as belonging to one or the other class - the Milesians on one side of the fence, the Orphics on the other, with a
disapproving frown for Empedocles because he insists on keeping one leg on each side. Surely what Empedocles
should teach us is that we are in a period of thought before such distinctions had any meaning. All shared a common
background which was neither rational nor mystical exclusively (Guthrie 103).
47
The relation between the two poems may therefore be compared wit that between logos and myth in Platonic
dialogues; with the important reservation that in Empedokles there is no definite distinction between these: are
Philia and Neikos myth, or not? (Zuntz 269)

17

Works Consulted
Adkins, Arthur W. H. ''Myth, Philosophy, and Religion in Ancient Greece.'' Myth and
Philosophy. Frank E. Reynolds & David Tracy, ed. Albany: SUNY Press, 1990. 95-130.
Print.
Bollack, Jean. Empedocle I. Introduction a lancienne physique. Paris : Les Editions
du Minuit, 1965. Print.
Bollack, Jean. ''Empedocles: Two Theologies, Two Projects.'' The Empedoclean
Kosmos: Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclity. Apostolis L. Pierris, ed.
Patras (Greece): Institute for Philosophical Research, 2005. 45-72. Print.
Boyanc, Pierre. Le culte des muses chez les philosophes grecs : tudes d'histoire
et de psychologie religieuse. Paris : de Boccard, 1936.
Burkert, Walter. ''Prehistory of Presocratic Philosophy in an Orientalizing Context.'' The
Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy. Patrica Curd & Graham D., eds. London:
Oxford University Press, 2008. 55-85. Print.
Cornford, F. M. Principium Sapientiae. Origins of Greek Philosophical Thought. New
York: Harper & Row, 1965. Print.
Curd, Patricia. ''On the Question of Religion and Natural Philosophy in Empedocles.''
The Empedoclean Kosmos: Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity.
Apostolis L. Pierris, ed. Patras (Greece): Institute for Philosophical Research,
2005. 137-162. Print.
Eliade, Mircea. Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return. New York:
Harper and Row, 1954. Print.
Finkelberg, Aryeh. "On the Unity of Orphic and Milesian Thought." The Harvard
Theological Review 79. 4 (1986): 321-335 3 Apr. 2010
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509743>.
Freudenthal, Gad. "The Theory of the Opposites and an Ordered Universe: Physics
and Metaphysics in Anaximander." Phronesis 31. 3 (1986): 197-228 16 Oct.
2011
< http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182257 >.
Guthrie, W. K. C. " The Presocratic World-Picture." The Harvard Theological Review
45. 2 (1952): 87-104 18 Apr. 2010 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509743>.
Harris, Stephen L. & G. Platzner. Classical Mythology. Images and Insights. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2004.

18

Hershbell, Jackson P. " Hesiod and Empedocles." The Classical Journal 65. 4 (1970):
145-161 3 Apr. 2010 < http://www.jstor.org/stable/3295548 >.
Hesiod & Theognis. Theogony, Works and Days, Elegies. London: Penguin Books,
1973. Print.
Inwood, Brad. The Poem of Empedocles. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001.
Print.
Jaeger, Werner. The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers. London: Oxford
University Press, 1947. Print.
Kahn, Charles H. ''Religon and Natural Philosophy in Empedocles Doctrine of the Soul.''
The Pre-Socratics. Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, ed. New York: Anchor Books, 1974.
426-456.
Print.
Kingsley, Peter B. "Empedocles in the New Millenium." Classical Quarterly 22. 2
(2002): 333-413 3 Apr. 2010 < http://www.pdcnet.org/collection/show?
id=ancientphil_2002_0022_0002_0333_0414&file_type=xml&page=1>.
Kirk, G.S. Myth Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures. London:
Cambridge University Press, 1970. Print.
Kirk, G.S. & J.E. Raven & M. Schofield. The Presocratic Philosophers. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print.
Laks, Andr. "Between Religion and Philosophy: The Function of Allegory in the
Derveni Papyrus." Phronesis 42. 2 (1997): 121-142 3 Apr. 2010
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182551>.
Osborne, Catherine. ''Sin and Moral Responsibility in Empedocles Cosmic Cycle.''
The Empedoclean Kosmos: Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclity.
Apostolis L. Pierris, ed. Patras (Greece): Institute for Philosophical Research,
2005. 283-308. Print.
Pierris, Apostolis. ''Nature and Function of Love and Strife in the Empedoclean
System.'' The Empedoclean Kosmos: Structure, Process and the Question of
Cyclity. Apostolis L. Pierris, ed. Patras (Greece): Institute for Philosophical
Research, 2005. 190-224. Print.
Prier, Raymond Adolph. Archaic Logic: Symbol and Structure in Heraclitus,
Parmenides, and Empedocles. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1976. Print.
Plutarch. Essays. London: Penguin Books, 1992. Print.
Primavesi, Oliver. ''Empedocles: Physical and Mythical Divinity.'' The Oxford Handbook
of Presocratic Philosophy. Patrica Curd & Graham D., eds. London: Oxford University
Press, 2008. 250-283. Print.
Proclus. Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Parmenides. Trans. Glenn R. Morrow and
John M. Dillon. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987. Print.

19

Tate, Paul D. "Comparative Hermeneutics: Heidegger, the Pre-Socratics, and the

Rgveda" Philosophy East and West, 32. 1 (1982): 47-59 3 Apr. 2010
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/1398751>.
Trzaskoma, Stephen M., R, Scott Smith & S. Brunet, eds & transl. Anthology of
Classical Myth. Primary Sources in Translation. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing
Company, 2004.
Vernant, Jean. Mythe et pense chez les Grecs. Paris : ditions La Dcouverte, 1985.
Print.
West, M. L. Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1971. Print.
Zuntz, Gnther. Persephone. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. Print.
The Bible Revised Standard Version. New York. American Bible Society. New York,
1971. Print.

The relationship between muthos and logos in the theogonies and cosmologies of
Ancient Greece range from the relatively straightforward mythos of
anthropormorphic gods of Homer and Hesiod to the rejection of muthos in favour of
strict logos adopted by Aristotle. Many comparative structuralist-oriented schools of
mythological theory have demonstrated the structural coherence of myths from a
symbolic perspective, be it from a social, psychological, or theological interpretation.
Examples range from Hesiods Theogony and Genesis to Pherekydes and Alcman as
well as the Orphic cosmogony from the Derveni papyrus. It could be considered that
there subsisted a basic world view generally adopted by most of the Presocratics
that reflected an established mythically-influenced world view. Furthermore, one can
notice a form of pantheism in the doctrines of the Milesians and Heraclitus, similar to
the pantheism found in Orphism. Conford posits three phases in the cosmogony of
Anaximander, common to Presocratic cosmogonies in general: (1) a primal Unity, a
state of indistinction or fusion in which factors that will later become distinct are
merged together. (2) out of this Unity emerge, by separation, pairs of opposite
things or powers; (3) this separating out leads to the disposition of the elemental
masses constituting the world-order, and the formation of the heavenly bodies. With
Empedocles, the qualities of a creative religious, mytho-poetic imagination fluent in
Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and Parmenides allies itself with a rational mind keenly
interested in understanding the natural world. To analyze the relation of muthos and
logos in Empedocles system, samples from the fragments of his poems will be
examined covering such aspect as:The threefold conception of the Sphere/Harmony
Love Strife; Love as the force of unity of bringing things together, mixing the four
elements to form the universe; Apollo as divine mind; Zeus, Hera, Aidoneus and
Nestis as the four roots of all things; the role of opposites; the role of necessity; the
four generations in creation; the age of Cypris; Aphrodite as demiurge; eschatology
and divinisation.