The Ancient Library

Scanned text contains errors.

On this page: Empodus – Emporius – Empusa – Empylus



substances and the two moving powers co-existed in a condition of repose and inertness? Empe-docles decided in favour of the latter supposition (Fragm. vers. 88, &c., 59, &c.; comp. Plat. Soph. p. 242; Aristot. de Coel. i. 10, PJiys. Auscult. i. 4, viii. 1), which agreed with ancient legends and traditions. This he probably did especially in or­der to keep still more distinctly asunder existences arid things coming into existence; and he conceived the original co-existence of the pure elementary substances'and of the two powers in the form of a sphere (<r<(>aipos ; comp. Karsten, p. 183, &c.), which was to indicate its perfect independence and self-sufficiency. As, however, these elementary substances were to exist together in their purity, without mixture and separation, it was necessary to suppose that the uniting power of love predomi­nated in the sphere (Aristot. MetapJiys. B. i. 4, A. 21, de Generat. et Corr. i. 1), and that the separating power of hate was in a state of limited activity, or, as Empedocles expresses it, guarded the extreme ends of the sphere. (Fragm. vers. 58, comp. 167, &c.) When the destructive hate rises into activity, the bond which keeps the pure ele­mentary substances together in the sphere is dis­solved (vers. 66, &c.); they separate in order partly to unite again by the power of love: and this is the origin of our world of phaenomena. But that the elementary substances might not be com­pletely absorbed by this world and lose their purity, Enipedocles assumed a periodical change of the sphere and formation of the world (Fragm. vers. 88, &c., 167, &c.); but perhaps also, like the earlier lonians, a perpetual continuance of pure fundamental substances, to which the parts of the world,, which are tired of change, return and pre­pare the formation of the sphere for the next period of the world. (H. Hitter in Wolfs Analect. ii. p. 445, &c., Gescli. der Philos. i. p. 555, &c.; but comp. Zellef, /. c. p. 191, &c.) The sphere being the embodiment of pure existence was with him also the embodiment or representative of the deity, either conceiving the deity as a collectivity, or mainly as the uniting power of love. (Fragm. vers. 70; comp. Aristot. de Generat. et Corr. ii. 6, Me-taphys. B. 4, de A mm. i. 5.) But as existence is not to be confined to the sphere, but must rather be at the foundation of the whole visible world, so the deity also must be active in it; But Empedocles was little able to determine the liow of this divine activity in its distinction from and connexion with the activity of the moving powers: he, too, like the Eleatics '(Xenojriian. Fragm. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, ed. Karsten), strove to purify and liberate the notion of the deity: "not provided with limbs, He, a holy, infinite spirit, passes through the world with rapid thoughts," is the sublime expression of Em­pedocles. (Fragm. vers. 359, &c., comp. 317.) Along with this, however, he speaks of the eternal power of Necessity as an ancient decree of the gods, and it is not clear whether the necessary succession of cause and effect, or an unconditional predestina­tion, is to be understood by it; or, lastly, whether Empedocles did riot rather leave the riotion of Necessity and its relation to the deity in that mysterious Darkness in which we find it in the works of most philosophers of aritiquity.

We perceive the world of phaenomena or changes through the niedium of our senses, but not so its eternal cause; and although Enipedocles traced both sensuous perception and thought.,to one and


the same cause, his six original beings (Aristot. de Anim. iii. 3, Metapliys. i. 57; Fragm. 321, &c.j 315, &c., 313, 318, &c.), stillhe clearly distin­guished the latter as a higher state of development from the former ; he complains of the small extent of our knowledge obtainable through our body (Fragm. 32, &c.), and advises us not to trust to our eyes or ears, or any other part of our body, but to see in thought of what kind each thing is by itself (Fragm. 49, &c., comp. 108, 356, &c.) ; but he attributes the thinking cognition to the deity alone. (Fragm. 32, &c., 41 ,,&c., 354, 362, &c.) We are, however, by no means justified in supposing that Empedocles, like the Eleatics, con­sidered that which is perceptible through the senses, i. e. the world and its phaenomena, to be a mere phantom, and the unity of the divine sphere, that is, the world of love, which is arrived at only by thought, to be the sole existence. (H. Hitter in Wolf's Analect. i. p. 423, &c., Gescli. der Philos. i. p. 541, &c.; Brandis, in the RheiniscJi. Museum, iii. p. 124 ; comp. Zeller, /. c. p. 184, &c.)

Further investigations concerning Empedocles's derivation of the different kinds of sensuous per­ ception, and of the mutual influence of things upon one another in general, from the coincidence of effluxes arid corresponding pores, as well as the examination of the fragments of his cosmologic and physiologic doctrines, must be left to a history of Greek philosophy. [Cn. A. B.]

EMPODUS (vEju?ro5os), an otherwise unknown writer, whose aTro^j/^jUoi/ev^ara are mentioned by Athenaeus. (ix. p. 370.) Casaubon proposed to read Ilocreio'c&i'tos instead of "EjUTroSos; but our ignorance about Empodus is not sufficient to justify' such a conjecture. [L. S.]

EMPORIUS, a Latin rhetorician, author of three short tracts entitled 1. De EtJiopoeia ac Loco Communi Liber ; 2. Demonstrativae Materiae prae-ceptum ; 3. De Deliberativa Specie. He is believed to have flourished not earlier than the sixth cen­tury, chiefly from the circumstance that he refers in his illustrations to the regal power rather than to the imperial dignity, which he would scarcely have done had he lived before the revival of the kingly title.

Empdritis was first edited by Beatus Rhenanus, along with some other authors upon rhetoric, Basil. 4to. 1521 ; the pieces named above will all be found in the " Antiqui Rhetores Latini" of F. Pithoeus, 4to., Paris, 1599, p. 278. [W. R.]

EMPUSA ('E^Trowra), a monstrous spectre, which was believed to devour human beings. It could assume different forms, and was sent out by Hecate to frighten travellers. It was believed usually to appear with one leg of brass and the other of an ass. (Aristoph. Ran. 294, Eccles. 1094.) Whenever a traveller addressed the monster with insulting words, it used to flee and utter a shrill sound. (Philostr. Vit. Apoll. ii. 4.) The Lamiae and Mormolyceia, who assumed the fonri of handsome women for the purpose of attract­ ing young men, and then sucked their blood like vampyrs and ate their flesh, were reckoned among the Empusae. (Philostr. Vit. Apoll. iv. 25; Suid. s. v.) _ [L. S.]

EMPYLUS, a rhetorician; the companion, as we are told by Plutarch, of Brutus, to whom he dedicated a short essay, not destitute of irierit, on the death of Caesar. It is not stated to what country he belonged. " Empylus the Rhodian"

About | First



page #  
Search this site
All non-public domain material, including introductions, markup, and OCR © 2005 Tim Spalding.
Ancient Library was developed and hosted by Tim Spalding of