Empedocles of Acragas - Was he pro-Democratic Glenn Mason-Riseborough (29/5/1998) Empedocles of Acragas (c. 492-432BC) was a philosopher who lived at a time when the tyranny of Theron and his son Thrasydaeus in Acragas was replaced by a democratic government. This essay will examine what is known of Empedocles, discussing his life and philosophy to determine if there is any indication that he was pro-democratic. To create perspective it is necessary to also briefly discuss the views of other philosophers and thinkers of his time. Was Empedocles unusual in his views, or was he a product of his environment and recited the standard philosophical view? While it is accepted that there were numerous documented philosophers at this time, due to space constraints this essay will focus on a comparison of Empedocles with Parmenides. There would seem to be two main angles from which to attack this topic. We may examine what little we know of his life through the commentaries of others. Did his actions indicate that he supported the democratic reforms in Acragas? Secondly, we may examine Empedocles’ writings to extract a cogent and consistent worldview that we can examine in the light of political ideology. Due to space constraints, this essay will be unable to give a full account of either one of these perspectives. It is the opinion of the author that both angles are necessary to get an idea of Empedocles the man. As such there will be a clear distinction within this essay between Empedocles’ actions and his writing. His Actions Guthrie paints a clear picture of Empedocles as a ‘champion of democracy’ Guthrie, 1965, p. 131). Burnet tempers this with a warning that many of the stories of Empedocles were ‘old wives tales’ told by the ‘great-grandchildren of his contemporaries’ (Burnet, 1930, p. 199). What we do know is that Empedocles was born into a wealthy and aristocratic family (1), and thus had the money and position to be an influential member of Acrogas. Theron died in 472 BC (2), and was succeeded by his son Thrasydaeus. Thracydaeus was overthrown within a year, and it seems that Empedocles’ father Meton (3) played an important part in not allowing Acragas to return to tyranny (Guthrie, 1965). Thus, Empedocles may well have been influenced by his father’s anti-tyrannical ideals. Wright (1981) points out that it is clear that Empedocles played an active role in the political scene in Acragas, but it is not clear exactly what he did. All we have are dubious anecdotes in which the sources are not very reliable. Neanthes states that after the death of Empedocles’ father, there were indications of a return to tyranny (Wright, 1981). Empedocles argued against this move and supported political equality. Wright (1981) states that Diogenes quotes Timaeus as saying that there were three incidents that showed Empedocles was actively pro-democratic. The first was when Empedocles prosecuted two officials for being rude to their guests (showing signs of tyranny). The story goes that the guests were kept waiting for a long time. When the drinks were finally poured the guests were ordered to drink up or have the wine poured over their heads. By today’s standards Empedocles’ actions would not be considered evidence of democratic tendencies. At best we could say that Empedocles did not like bullies. The second incident involved Empedocles rejecting a claim by the physician Acron to have land allocated for a memorial to Acron’s father. Again, this is an obscure story which does little to shed light on Empedocles democratic ideals or otherwise. The third incident is potentially a little more revealing. In this story, it is said that Empedocles broke up an organisation known as the ‘Thousand.’ Guthrie (1965) takes this story as an indication of Empedocles anti-oligarchic and pro-democratic leanings. Wright (1981) is less willing to commit himself and questions the status of the ‘Thousand.’ He states that it is not known if the ‘Thousand’ was a formal senate, a conspiracy, or simply a local club. A fragment of Aristotle states that Empedocles refused an offer of kingship (Wright, 1981). Burnet (1930) suggests that this offer was in response to the dissolving of the ‘Thousand.’ On the other side of the coin, there is a suggestion that Empedocles’ ‘medicine-man’ characteristics and his claim to being a god showed signs of being tyrannical (Burnet, 1930). His religious aspects, sorceries, claims of powers of healing, and delusions of grandeur indicate definite anti-democratic ideals. Again, these stories may be exaggerations and fairytales made by his enemies regarding his skill as a physician. His Writings Currently, we have knowledge of two poems written by Empedocles, these are known as On Nature and Purifications. Diogenes says that they amount to 5000 lines, it is probably slightly smaller than this (approximately two books for On Nature and one book for Purifications) but at present we have only discovered about 450 lines of text (Guthrie, 1965). It is unknown when either poem was written and in which order. Numerous scholars have hypothesised that a large time span separates the two works based on the apparent difference in content and character (e.g. Bidez and Diels (Guthrie, 1965)). Others have suggested that it is permissible to have a consistent split between philosophical and religious thought, and thus they could have been written at a similar time (e.g. Dodds, (Guthrie, 1965)). Still others question whether the apparent difference is justified. Guthrie (1965) points out that the sourcing of quotes to one poem or the other may be entirely arbitrary, based on the preconceptions of modern editors. The important point to make here in the context of this essay is our lack of knowledge. It may be the case that Empedocles had different views at different periods of his life, and that to say that he was only ‘pro- democratic’ or ‘anti-democratic’ is too simplistic. Despite our best efforts, it is extremely difficult to fit any philosopher throughout his life into a single framework (4). Hammond (1986) gives us a brief synopsis of Empedocles cosmology, which he states has been deduced from the two poems. While this does not give us an explicit account of Empedocles’ political ideology, it does give us an idea of his metaphysical beliefs. It can then be argued that these beliefs can be extended to democratic ideals. In brief, Empedocles believed the world was made up of finite combinations of four elements – Earth, Air Fire, and Water. The combined elements were then acted on by two forces – Love and Strife. Fate determined that the forces ebbed and flowed such that at different times one force or the other was dominant. In a sense this is similar to the idea of a democracy in which the power of an individual is continually in flux. No one has absolute power all of the time. Empedocles believed in a form of reincarnation such that a ‘soul’ or ‘intelligence’ was implanted in all things and migrated from object to object. ‘I was once already boy and girl and thicket and bird and fish of the salty sea’ (Empedocles, cited in Hammond, 1986, p. 340). Gods were not immune to this natural order and those who committed errors were condemned to walk as mortals for a time. ‘Such am I now outcast from heaven and a wanderer who put his trust in raging Strife’ (Empedocles, cited in Hammond, 1986, p. 341). Thus, from this interpretation we may surmise that Empedocles believed that what is most fundamental of an individual is his/her/its soul. Our soul is the same regardless of our current incarnation - god or human, animal or plant. The soul is perfect and it is only our current incarnation that restricts us and reduces us to imperfection. A conclusion of this (although admittedly not a necessary one) is that it is morally wrong to judge or restrict a person based only on their current incarnation. Thus, a democratic system is an ideal, in which all members of a society vote on what is good for the society and individuals within it. Naturally, practical reasons would not allow trees within the city to vote. Additionally, dogs, women, horses, slaves, etc. might be excused from voting because of the limitations placed on them by their physical bodies. Were Empedocles’ philosophical ideas unusual for his time? To answer this we will discuss briefly the views of Parmenides, a contemporary of Empedocles. Parmenides believed Being was the fundamental attribute of existence (Vlastos, in Furley & Allen, 1970). Within this Being, justice (respect for nature and its laws) predominates logically and necessarily. The idea of cosmological justice was a standard view at this time and many Greeks including Empedocles adhered to it. This gives us an absolute view of truth or ‘Way of Truth’ (Barnes, 1982). Perhaps it could be argued convincingly that the justice and truth of Being can best be reflected in a society that allows the citizens to freely express their opinions, that is, a democratic society. However, Parmenides also warned us of the Way of Opinion – ‘The Way of Opinion is a path of falsehood and deceit (Barnes, 1982). This path is taken when men argue falsely, using rhetoric to express their opinion. This seems a clear argument against a democratic society in which rhetoric is seen as a virtue. It was said by Aristotle that Empedocles was the inventor of Rhetoric (Burnet, 1930). Thus, it is clear that there were fundamental differences of opinion within Greek society, and Empedocles certainly had different ideas from Parmenides in some respects. Conclusions If we are to believe many of the anecdotes about Empedocles, the peoples champion, then we must accept that Empedocles was strongly pro-democratic. The texts tell us that Empedocles was a man who was dedicated to democratic principles, and rejected kingship when it was offered to him. Certainly, he was a much loved and popular person who may have even deserved the folklore that surrounded him. His writings indicate that he had a philosophy that stated that deep down all forms of life were equal. This may have required him to accept that people have the right to choose their own path, and hence have a pro- democratic stance. This may be contrasted with an interpretation of Parmenides’ ‘Way of Opinion’ in which opinion leads to falsehoods. On the other hand, if we were to be cynical we may say that many of the stories about Empedocles are biased. They paint a rosy picture of a past that may never have happened. Perhaps he considered himself to be a religious leader, superior in his enlightenment than the masses. Thus, while there is strong evidence for Empedocles as a pro-democrat, it is important not to take the stories of him as gospel. Bibliography: Allen, R. E. & Furley, D. J. (Eds.). (1975). Studies in presocratic philosophy. Volume 2. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Barnes, J. (1982). The presocratic philosophers. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Burnet, J. (1930). Early Greek philosophy. 4th edn. London: Adam & Charles Black. Furley, D. J. & Allen, R. E. (Eds.). (1970). Studies in presocratic philosophy. Volume 1. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Guthrie, W. K. C. (1965). A history of Greek philosophy. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hammond, N. G. L. (1986). A history of Greece to 322BC. 3rd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wright, M. R. (1981). Empedocles: The extant fragments. New Haven: Yale University Press. Endnotes: 1 Empedocles’ grandfather Empedocles won a horse race at Olympia in 496 BC (Wright, 1981) 2 Hammond (1986) tells us Theron died in 472 BC, Wright (1981) states that it was 473 BC. 3 Wright (1981) states that most authorities say that Meton is the name of Empedocles’ father. However, Archinomos and Exaenetos have also been used by different sources. 4 A prime example of this in modern times is Friedrich Nietzsche. Many people consider that Nietzsche’s philosophy can be fit into three or four different periods. On the other hand Nietzsche himself maintained that it was simply a progression of thought.