New fragments of greek philosophers, 1. Empedocles, Democritus, Theophrastus in arabic translation

ANR FAT 4 HA GREEK PA Laka PALZRS TC Sr QVSooc ves se BWSR , TUESCALASTLS <a AAS ART ia AAR Ae CL

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: 08/07/2013 11:05 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 192.87.31.20 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 11:05:32 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FRAGMENTS GREEK PHILOSOPHERS I: EMPEDOCLES, DEMOCRITUS, THEOPHRASTUS IN ARABIC TRANSLATION. mobad and commentator of the renounced the traditional dualism. Byzantium and Sasanian Iran, perennial warriors Avesta had Ahriman or (from the Manichaean point of view) the Prince and (as it seemed) implacable enemies, were not of Darkness found no counterpart; the Supreme insensible toward the merits of Lord alone was present in the celestial world (2). the opponent. Like all rivals, they knew how to learn from each He other. Maurikios and Herakleios borrowed from that led from light and its spiritual aspects by was reached through a sequence of grade the eastern neighbour cavalry weapons and tacway of thought and action and of the satisfaction tics, military and baronial fiefs, military authoof life necessities down to their material procurity in the border provinces, from which, all the rement. theme organization later arose. On the other side, Platonicism; and the coincidence was carried on half-a-century earlier Khusrö I Andsarvan had in the solar interpretation of sovereignty and the imitated the revenue organization of Diocletian symbolism connected with it. and his successors. A public revenue hitherto This can be proved to go back to Neo- Already A. Christensen tried to compare Maunheard of, and not even approached by Byzanzdak’s grade order with that of the late Sasanian tium, feudal state (3). enabled the Sasanians to renew their We, on our side, put forward the struggle against Rome, and against their neighsuggestion that Khusrö I Anö$arvän in his reorbours in general, with an intensity unknown before. ganization Even more surprising and, as will be shown, more important was a borrowing of another kind. grade of the orders state took into account the of his predecessor and adversary. The late Sasanian feudal state would then be an The literary and religious life of Late Sasanian eatthly imitation Iran seemed determined almost exclusively by a planned in the heaven; of course with all the maniof what Mazdak taught and series of Zoroastrian works that are unrivalled fold differences that separated the proclaimer of in their aridity and lack of spiritual content; the Kingdom of Light from the mighty of this but now Iran once more stood forth as a meeting earth (+). point of religions and philosophies. Of course, This suggestion was later confirmed. Not only the grand epoch of Manicheism was long forgot- Mazdak, Khusrö I AnöSarvän too had made himten, the creation of the Talmud was concluded in self acquainted with Neo-Platonic thought. Moits essentials. re than that, the king was keen to appear as a And yet a new approach was shaping at the beginning of the 6th century. philosopher of the Greek sort (5). When we began the present investigation, we In the first half of the 12th century Muhamcould not anticipate that the neo-Platonic patmad a$-Sahrastäni worked an enormous mateterns would stand out against the background rial into his Kitab al-milal wa-n-nihal. He quoted of Mazdak’s thought (1). not only the great teachers of Islam, their sects It became clear that the

His interest extended source seems to have been a Syriac translation. also to Zoroastrians and Manichaeans, Buddhists Their existence is known from the Fihrist, that and magnificent and philosophical schools. Christians, Sabeans and Mazdakites. All their systems were described by a$-Sahrastäni in catalogue of the book market of Baghdad, which was compiled by a connoisseur the scolastic language of Islamic dogmatics and and dealer toward the end of the 10th century. brought into some sort of perspicuous order. The well-informed author, A volume on the Greek philosophers could not be missing. From an external point of view, it who lists thousands of titles, could be get hold only of the fourth book of the Syriac translations of the history of begins with Thales, the earliest of the pre-Socraphilosophy (1°). It seems that the work was tics, and goes down to the latest period, 1. e. to very rare and was no longer included in the current the last great thinkers of the Neo-Platonic school. stock of the market. Choice, knowledge and description are heteroge- It is, therefore, a priori unlikely that the Syriac neous, since ad-Sahrastáni was dependent on his version of Porphyry’s book was a product of the various authorities and possessed no knowledge of great the Greek originals. Hunain, who represents the crown and complet- A canon of seven philosophers stands out in the general body of the Greek philosophy (*); translating activity under the Abbasids. ion of the translator school of the 9th century, was a Christian and came from Hira, the former a$-Sahrastani calls them the seven Wise Men. cultural centre of the lower Euphrat country. Of course they have nothing to do with those mostly seven Wise Men, with whom the history of Greek and these were translated into Arabic by his sons thought used formerly to begin. They are “ piltranslated and pupils. Greek originals But Hunain is not into Syriac, mentioned as lars of wisdom ”; the series begins with Thales translator of the History of Philosophy. and look elsewhere. leads through Anaxagoras, Anaximenes, Pythagoras, Empedocles, down to Socrates and Plato. The latter Aristoteles is closes the canon, in which self should have operated this choice. It was We must Nestorian Christians had fled from the Byzantine persecutions to the enemy country nearby, Sasanian Iran. not included. It is hardly thinkable that a$-Sahrastäni him- He As opponents of the imperial church, they were received, orthodox allowed to set up an organization of their own, and given imposed on him; and already the canon in itself permission to proselitize. gives a hint to this effect. The first centuries spread far to the East, as far as Southern Siberia A.D. an ever-increasing busied themselves, to and China. Nestorian comunities Besides, they developed a fertile degree, with the compilation of canons of the translating activity from Greek into Syriac. ancient poets, orators, philosophers and of their concerned mostly Christian literature, but also It works. An epoch that was no longer able or Porphyry’s famous Introduction to Aristoteles’s willing to the enormously increased logical works, a recognized school book and reachmass of Greek literature, felt the need of a discriing manual, was translated at that time. Of courminating choice. In this, the number seven played se, the fact that the History of Philosophy was a great role. included deal with The canon of seven philosophers, laid down by was unconnected with both religious and teaching activity. This It so happened that Khusrö I AndSarvan, a Neo-Platonic thinker, a pupil and friend of Plohigh-handed upholder of royal claims, the killer tinus, one of the most learned and fertile writers of Mazdak and an enemy of East Rome, pitiless Porphyry, is particularly well known (7). We and deaf to all lamentations, by a freak of deswith tiny possessed an equally unconditional tendency of his time, lived in the late 3rd century. know also Plato (8). that Porpyry’s canon ended Its author dealt with it in his great toward Greek philosophy (). His admirers afourscribed to him a knowledge of Plato and Aristovolumes History of Philosophy, which is lost exteles down to the last subtleties; he was said to cept for a few fragments. have chronological work, but above all in But these his remnants allow us to establish (and some hints in a$-Sahread and understood the most difficult dialogues, such as Timaeus and Parmenides. As rastäni confirm this) that the section on the sea matter of fact, the king gave hospitality to the ven Wise Men represents an excerpt from Porphy- Neo-Platonics who had become homeless rys work. the closing of their school in 529; he kept this after by protecting hand upon them even when they turanother Arab author, Abt l-Wafa’ al—MubaSSir ned their backs upon him in disappointment and (middle of the 11th century) (*). wished to return home. Some such excerpts are preserved also Of course neither he nor a$-Sahrastäni go back to the Greek original of Porphyry. 4 In both cases the mediate In neighbouring Byzantium, where Khusrö I was hated anyway, this philosophical ambition

met with the most spiteful mockery. He was said to have fallen into the clutches of halfa large quantity of misunderstandings, obscurities, and of mistranslations deriving therefrom. Today philosophers; it was also maintained that a barbarian could never draw the noble style, the factual precision of Attic speech from translations in an uncultivated Persian) (#2). language (meaning Middle- And yet Khusrö was an influence that was felt. We know contemporary works Haarbrücker’s translation ger be utilized. can no lon- After we have solved the problem of the sources of our section, it goes without saying that the passages under examination have every time to be translated and interpreted anew. The further question, what can the excerpt from of philosophical content that are dedicated to him Porphyry’s or were composed at his suggestion. A Nestophilosophy, must remain for the present without rian, Paulus the Persian, compiled for the king even an attempt at an answer; it would widely an introduction to logic come down to us (#). in Syriac, which has We know, through one of the Neo-Platonics living at his court, subjects the ruler liked to on what dispute (4). - Kalila wa-Dimna alludes to philosophical efforts The same attitude comes to the fore everywhe-. re. Philosophical thought, as understood at the on the pre-Socratic overstep the limits of our enquiry. The followto Empedocles. It begins, in accordance with the scheme of a$-Sahrastäni, element. to of the same kind (15). teach us ing discussion is limited to the section dedicated The contemporary preface to the highly praised work work the with the creator and the first Then follows reason as something due creator; lastly the composition of the primary elements out of love (®:Aia) and struggle (Neixos) 7%). All this means no novelty to us. court of Anosarvan, turned without further ado But then it goes on to say: “ The teaching (kalam) upon the ultimate questions of metaphysics: god, of Empedocles has, however, yet another start primary matter and elements, creation and end (masag)”. of the world. which was not yet there: a theory of the soul. to achieve supercilious their own This was not, however, in order solutions, but scepticism. position merely to They by tried comparing display meet with something a “He said that the growing soul is the bark to justify (gisr) (7) of the animal (8) soul, and the animal the various partly opposite solutions that had been given by soul the bark of the logical soul (!*), and the logical soul the bark of the rational soul (?°). And everything inferior is the bark to what is superior, the philosophers to those problems. A book like Porphyry’s history of philosophy met the requirements of this trend. And here we Not only it submitted to the attention of the philosophers and what is superior is its pith (/ubb). And sometimes he employs for bark and pith the terms body and spirit; he posits the growing soul as the same kind of questions, but it represented a body for the animal soul, and the latter as the sort of inventory of the solutions put forward, spirit of the former, and so on, till he reaches the which afforded a welcome material for this scep- Reason ” (?4)’, ticism. All this led to the Syriac translation of We recognize here a gradation of four souls. Porphyry’s work; it remains unknown whether a The two superior ones, the logical and the rational Middle soul, belong to man; the third one to the animals. Persian version was also undertaken. Thus, we shall attribute the growing soul to the plants, and indeed it is termed as such later on (?). 2. The passage here translated is the only statement of a$-Sahrastäni which is quoted (through the AS-Sahrastäni’s explanations The translation of Th. Haarbrücker) in Diels-Kranz’s releedition of the pre-Socratics (#2), where it is comof the Encyclodaedia of Islam caagainst their use. repute. Greek vant utions high the enjoy article no on philosophers Classical scholars did pared with fr. 117: “ Because I became already once a boy, a girl, a plant, a man, and a dumb not concern themselves with a$-Sahrastäni, with fish that rises from the waves ”. one exception which will be discussed later. is justified through the assertion that the This lations been shown up to now that Porphyry lies as the but that in this particular case we have “a core stacle was represented Th. Haarbriicker. by An even greater obthe translation of When it appeared in 1850-51, the “ Arabs” are specubehaviour was understandable, since it had not bottom of the Arab text. of The comparison “very fanciful ”, of truth, viz. the gradation: plant, animal, man, god”. ‘To this we may answer that a$-Sahrastäni was no Arab, but a Persian; that he was born in But it Khorasan and studied in Jurjäniya and Nisapur; was insufficient even for those times, not only that it still remains to be seen whether his specbecause it did not give access to the contents of ulations are fanciful. a$-Sahrastäni’s book, but because it contained fr. 117 deals with the entrance of the soul in cerit may have been a meritorious work. The decisive point is that

tain bodies, while a$-Sahrastäni speaks of a suc- Neixos (2); a$-Sahrastäni explains this shortly cession of souls as such. before (89). refore, The two passages, thehave nothing to do directly with each that According to him, Empedocles said “the Creator did not cease to be He (*) other, but show the same gradation, because the alone. rational soul would correspond to the vote, i.e. strength, to God, and the logical soul to man. U. v. Wila- Not in the sense that forces exist which are called mowitz (#4) has cited fr. 127 in the same connection. by this name, but they (the forces) are He, and But is this really Empedocles? P. Moraux He is pure knowledge, pure will, liberality, power, justice, goodness and truth. he is synonimous with them all, creator (mubdi”) points out that the distinction between the three only (22); not in the sense that he created out of souls — doentixy or qurux wvym something (**), and not alodntırn or Colin) poyy of the of the plants, animals, Aoyuen in the sense that something had existed outside him; he created the yoy, of man — as well as the theory that the simple lower forms are contained in the upper ones, are vontov (%) (ma’gul) and the first ‘unsur (85) ” Aristotelian. form a The Neoplatonics added as supreme vontixy pvyy. This is, therefore, not something, which is the first simple This renders the passage capable of interpretation. We recognize a formative process, which The latter felt 1mstarts from the creator and the primeval element pelled by Empedocles’s theory of the uerevowuaroand includes successively the intelligible, reason, otc to discover in him the theory of the four souls. universal soul and universal nature. The circumstances in another case are similar. utilizes what has come over from the preceding Empedocles, but Porphyry. The conception of bark-pith and body-spirit, for the formation of a new one. Each step We have thus in which bark and body enclose pith or spirit, is again a gradation, with the only difference that known to be Empedoclean (?5). this time it proceeds from the higher to the lower. of a Daimon, Fr. 126 speaks who clothes the souls with the extraneous robe of the flesh. ‘ Robe” (yr) corresponds to the bark and indicates the body. The series év — vontov — vets — wuyi) — puo is Neoplatonic. According to Plotinus the differentiation of vontov and vods is of a purely con- The eye too is said to have an interior of fiery ceptual kind: the vontdéy does not stand outside substance, but water, earth and air enclose it (?*). the vos (5). He thus opposes the view of the Once more the fine, superior, is surrounded with younger Porphyry, who wanted to separate vonthe coarse; and accordingly we are told in fr. 84 tov that on the creation of the eye primeval fire, Sahrastäni is therefore purely Porphyrian. and vods (7). The series found with enclosed in skins and in thin clothes, concealed starting itself have been Empedocles’s word on the behind the round-eyed girl (the pupil). point rejoices for such of an the interpretation may Also with the “‘ heavy-backed shells of the water which dwellers’, the sea snails and the stone-skinned around (98). tortoises, the earth lies on the surface of the skin thus with as-Sahrastäni’s ‘unsur. It was as- The solitude ogaigoc, prevailing all equated with the &, and (fr. 76). Accordingly, the body, which encloses “In the (universal) nature barks (= bodies) the soul, is called “ man-surrounding earth ” came into existence, which were not similar to it (in their real essence) (%), nor were they similar (fr. 148) (>). And yet the true Empedocles differentiates himself from aë-Sahrastäni and Porphyry. the former, “ bark—pith’’ refer With exclusively to to the spiritual, universal soul subtle had the couple body-soul and the like, but a soul never connected with reason. the bark of another. This from What the reason, had become form in the universal nature. universal nature, constitutes reason”. received in its origin Thus the and essence, is The bodies, which now transformation, as shown by the underlying theory come into being in the universal nature, are disof the four souls, could be undertaken by a Neosimilar from the real essence of universal nature, Platonic only, 1.e. by Porphyry. because they are unconnected with reason. “ And he said: after the primeval element caused We cannot conceal the fact that another, and whatever of the rational spiritual forms (as—suwar) probably more correct interpretation is possible: was with him to be shaped in reason, and after —há in tusbihuha might be referred to the subject reason had caused whatever it had taken over of the preceding sentence, viz. to the universal from the primeval element to be shaped in the soul. It then would mean: the barks — bodies, (universal) soul, then the that arise universal soul caused whatever it had taken over from reason to be shaped in the universal nature ”” (28). What we have translated as the universal nature, resemble neither the universal soul nor the reason. “But after reason had looked upon it (the eleuniversal nature) (4°) and has seen the spirit and ment ” (al-unsur al-awwal), stands in opposition the pith within the bodies and the barks, a numto the two doyai, that rise from him, DiXia and ber of fine, noble and splendid forms flowed down “ primeval

upon it (the universal nature) (“); and these are the side of its (the universal nature’s) simple comthe forms of the souls that resemble the rational, ponent parts were the opposite fine and spiritual forms, so that they (the souls) elements, on the side of its compounded parts (forces) of the govern it (the universal nature) and freely rule were the mutually opposite temperamental (miover it thanks to the distinction between barks zajt), structural (tabi‘z) (45), vegetal (nabati) and pith, and in the last instance let the pith animal (hayawdnt) forces. ascend to their (the souls’) world ”. stood up against it (the universal soul) because Reason sees through what had taken place in of the distance from and And they (the forces) its (the universal soul’s) bodies, whole, and there agreed with them (with the forwhich do not resemble it and the original essence ces) the soul-parts, who were led astray by its of universal nature. (the universal nature’s) deceptive world ” (4). universal nature. It sees the arising But it sees also that the bodies enclose spiritual contents. These contents are witness to the real essence of universal nature, Pidia and Neixoc, familiar conceptions of the Empedoclean theory of nature, appear here in a version. In the //eoi @öoews nature is which is connected with reason; but, being imnew prisoned in bodies, need refinement and liberation. permeated with Both: “ ... now everything unites They obtain both through the insight of reason: into one in love, now the single elements separate forms that resemble the forms of reason (once in the hatred of fight ” #). more a Neoplatonic conception), unite with the the universal soul. Nature is incapable of love. universal nature. Its essence is fight. Both the simple components They permeate the spiritual Now love alone suits contents, refine them and give them immediate of nature and the compounded ones fight against access to the universal nature. each other. Of course “ pith ” On the one side the elements fight in the last sentence indicates the spiritual coneach other, on the other side the living beings do tents, which are embellished by the flowing down the same; in the //eoi göcews fighting lays hold of the elements too: of the forms of the soul. “ Now One grows out of “And the partial souls were parts of the uni- Many into sole Being, now it separates again, to versal soul like the parts of the sun rising over the be Many out of One: fire and water and earth openings of the house, and the universal nature and the infinite height of air, then fight separate is caused by the (universal) soul. And he (Emfrom them, equally strong everywhere ” (**). But pedocles) distinguished between part and what is Neixos seizes the elements no more, when Didia caused; the part is one thing and what is caused too does it. another ” (#). separation, life and death. With the individual souls as parts of the uni- Both permeate nature as union and In our passage too love is union: fight is, if not death, at least separversal soul, we find ourselves once more within the ation, entanglement, estrangement. compass of Plotinian and Porphyrian thought (+). the ITeol péoews the anthitesis operates horizon- But while in While the universal nature stands in a more extally, in our passage it does so vertically. terior relationship to the universal soul on account comes upward, fight of its being caused (#), the essence of the part is operates downward and drags downward. Since explained by a comparison with the sun. from above and aspires Love Once love corresponds to the universal soul and fight more Plotinus employs the simile of the light, to nature, the whole of the world arranges itself above all when he has to explain the relationship in superimposed order: above the universal soul, between a higher and a lower hypostasis (1, 1, 12, below the universal nature. 26f.; 1, 1, 8, 15; 2, 9, 2-3; 6, 4, 15 in the middle). the universal soul, while the elements and their Here too the starting point can be recognized. blends According to Empedocles fr. 22 the radiating sun belong to the world of Neixos and are withdrawn (niéxtwo), like all cosmic powers, is harmoniously from Billa, become the opposite pole united with its parts, although the latter are to universal nature; thus they of Dulia. Once more we can recognize the size of the transformation that Porphyry has permitted himwidely scattered in the mortal world. ‘He said further: the peculiarity of the universal soul is love. belong Reason adheres to After it (the universal soul) had looked upon reason and its beauty and splendour, self. For Empedocles, Cypris was the primeval goddess, who reigned even before Kronos (fr. 128), and Porphyry equated her expressly with it loved it, as the lover the object of his love. Pilia (de abst. 2.20). And it tried to unite with it and moved toward superimposed order, was for Empedocles a chroit. And the peculiarity of universal nature is fight, because, after it arose, it had no vision, through which it could perceive and love the (universal) soul and reason. Rather, opposite forces arose from it (the universal nature). On But what he arranged in nological sequence: a golden age, to be followed by other ages. This will find confirmation later on. In the details, we find again contacts with the original Empedocles. souls that We Neîxos drags are told about them away from the

reason among men, to tear away life and to swallow up cannot see the universal nature Neixos but only And when universal soul and noble limbs was deemed the greatest defilement what corresponds to their own essence, we may of all. Accordingly, fr. 139 mentions the oyétdr recall fr. 119, according to which love can be reco- ¿goya Poods; also yadua ano woyry dovoas of fr. 138 gnized only by love, hatred only by belongs in this context. sorrowful hatred. . “They the (the soul parts) inclined toward sen- Empedocles reinforces indictment by quoting ustevowudtwors to the the effect myth that of the the father sual pleasure, such as healthy food, wholesome slaughters his son, the son his father, the mother drink, fresh clothing, radiant aspect and longedher children in order to swallow their own flesh for love connexion. And they forgot what of and blood (fr. 137). We should place in the that splendour, of that beauty and perfection, same connexion the admonition to abstain from spiritual and laurel leaves and beans (fr. 140-141). moral rational, their own essence ”” (5°). was inherent to | Trees alone bore once fruits the whole year and could therefore Here we must recall first of all the warning of give of them to man (fr. 77-78) (5). As the for- Empedocles, who laid upon his disciples to avoid mer referred to the animal soul, so the latter to intercourse with women, so that “they do not the vegetal. cooperate concerned with sequence of boy, girl, animal and plant that trathus dissolving verses the soul, and in fr. 127 the transformation love’ (5). of former men in lions and laurels, 1.e. again in works and and do carried clearing out not become by asunder ÂVeïxos. the work of Above all, in this instance too we may best compare Porphyry. We are involuntarily reminded Accordingly we find in fr. 117 a animal and plant. The peculiarity of our text stands more (55). renders the sensual perceptions in a richer way Age, an ideal primitive condition in which men, and knowing with a luxuriant visualization. they chain the souls to the nether world. Here too <A trans- Empedocles of referred wuerevowudtwors, to out once of a description like in de abst. I, 33-34, which the Golden abstained from meat. Here on the contrary there is question ition to the following is represented by the libeneither of ration happening when the soul is reminded of owuarwoıs, but the lower forms of the soul, being what it has forgotten and is purified of what ensnared in the world of Neixoc, stains it (de abst. I, 30). home by a finer and nobler part of the soul. the Golden Age nor of the uererare led back ‘“ When the universal soul saw their (the soul What was a chronological sequence with Empeparts’) inveighing and their ensnarement, she sent docles — Golden Age followed by others, worse down to them one of her (the universal soul’s) ones —, is again decomposed for Porphyry into parts, which was more penetrating (5), finer and an above and a below, into spiritual and rational nobler than both these souls, the animal and the world in opposition to the material one. vegetal ones, and than those souls ensnared in “ And this noble part (of the universal soul) them, in order that it should prevent both souls is the prophet (an-nabr), who is sent out in each from inveighing, and should teach the ensnared rotation of rotations. souls to love her reason and of the first primitive element, in what (the universal soul’s) world, He walks in the rules of and should remind them of what they had forconcerns the observance of Pilla and Neixoc. gotten, and should instruct them in what they did treats some of the souls as a friend with wisdom He not know, and should purify them of that with and kind admonition, with others he deals sharply which they had stained themselves, and should with force and through Neixos (56). cleanse them of that with which they had made times he summons (%) by his tongue on behalf themselves unclean ” (*). of Bilía We learn here for the first time that not only And somein a kind way, and sometimes by the sword on behalf of Neixos in a violent way, in parts of the universal soul in general, but the order to liberate the noble partial souls that are animal and vegetal in particular belong to the ensnared in the temptations of both the temperasouls ensnared in the universal nature and Neixoc. mental souls (the animal and the vegetal), by the The animal and vegetal souls stand one step lower empty temptation and the vain delusion ” (5). than the remaining parts of the soul that are ensnared in the universal nature, so that they are separated from these. With Empedocles, the ensnarement of the ani- First of all, it is clear that Porphyry was reminded of a Platonian formulation (5). In Phaedon 94 B the mastery over everything in man is ascribed to the rational part of the soul. This mal soul in the world of Veïxoc is shown above all mastery over the soul ta uër yadermóteoov xoddboby the killing and eating of the animal. Fr. 128, $f. voa xai wer’ dAyndovar... ta DE NOAOTEDOV, xal tà tells of the Golden Age, in which, contrary, to the pev present, no altar was sprinkled with bull blood; xal ópyais xal pdpots de AAAn otoa dilw rody ar: áxetlodoa, ta de vovderoöca, taic Erudvulaus

dtaheyouery (94 D); cf. Rep. 617 D. This agrees with the picture hitherto obtained. of the spiritual beings, and both are a body for What does “ that rotation of rotations ’’ mean? Apparently it is the xdxJoc, the xaÿdlov Aristoteles speaks even vegetal and animal souls) ascends to the world it (the noble partial soul) in that world, as both petaBody. were a body for it in Zhıs world. For it is said: of the rzeolodos by Emif domination and fortune (róxn) falls to the lot pedocles (5); only it is not a cosmic revolution, of one, then men love such ones, so that he overbut one of the soul; a revolving by “ rejection and comes his enemies (%) through their (these mens’) redemption ” (5), more correctly perhaps by enlove to him (9) ». snarement and liberation. The Golden Age, des- It turns out once more that the “ prophet ”’ cribed by Empedocles as an ideal primitive state, knows how to must be followed by others; and it can be had in Only, Billa appears now as the more important, the mention of a number of “ rotations ”” which because it not only connects the followers with as a matter of principle is illimited. These ages utilize both, Billa and Neíxoc. their prophet, but also helps the latter, by this do not fit with Porphyry’s interpretation, who very fact, to victory over the enemies. recognized no course, but only an above and a all: a word is said, which is the key to everything below, and no Golden Age, and therefore could that precedes. not recognize any following age. means that he is a moditixdc, of course not an But this very fact shows that we have stumbled upon something truly Empedoclean. aled under this “ prophet’’. We could think of ir. 146, where the sentence t@v oop@r tac wvyds is quoted The prophet possessing the daula ordinary one, but one who comes from above and will once return to his divine home. It still remains to be explained what is conce- Beovs yviveoda Above as ching, whereupon the udvreıs Empedocles's are teamentioned as In this connexion let us recall that the title moditixdc is handed down for Empedocles (8°). Most of what we said above is new and, as we must confess, unexpected. solubly fitted into the And yet it is indiswhole. The end turns the first of those “ who grow up as gods, richest in back to the beginning, an original condition is honours’’. restored. Empedocles also says of himself Vegetal and animal souls, created as that he goes about as an immortal god (fr. 112,4), bark of the logical and rational ones, are brought and back to the upper realm and take again their men come to (1. c. 10). him pavtoovvéwv xexonuevor And yet it would be absurd to see in seat there (57). a$-Sahrastäni’s “ prophet’ simply an Empedoclean udvrıs. Wherever Empedocles paraphrases 3. a corresponding conception, he does not do it by an unequivocal term. ’Intooi tuvondijot and the There is A defender of the Empedoclean philosophy in always a multiplicity of words and conceptions, Islamic times was the Spanish mystic Ibn Masarra as plurality of names lies near to his heart (*). (d. 931). M. Asin Palacios wrote a widely noticed The “ prophet’ would rather suit a$-Sahrastäni, memoir on him (*), with whom this idea plays a certain role (8). Or M. Horten (®) like stand at the side of the uavreıs. and in connexion with it declared Ibn Masarra’s teaching to be a compilation from Philon, Plotinus and the does it lead to Porphyry himself? Granted, he speaks of zoogfjra: of the Egyptians (de abst. 4,8), and Iamblichus does the same in historical Empedocles. But this judgment concerns less Ibn Masarra himself than the reconhis reply to Porphyry’s letter to Anebo (de myst. struction given by Asin Palacios. 1,1). The corporeal must be first eliminated, so presented no original texts, but a summary of that the noopitns may be prepared sic dxodoyrv what Arabic authors, among whom a$-Sahrastäni, Veo. The the divine soul must éxinvoia, become the pure seat of which radiates upon it; narrate about Empedocles. The latter It is, however, not proved and not even likely that all this goes back so we are told in another passage (de myst. 3, 11). to Ibn Masarra. But this too has nothing to do with the ‘ prohand of a$-Sahrastäni. clothes both the lower souls (vegetal and animal) with Palacios (?°) that in some case the text of a$-Sahrastani is close to that of aó-Sahrazúri. This the robe of the noble soul, so that the quality is the case for a piece from what we have treated phet ” as described by a$-Sahrastäni. “And sometimes he (the prophet) We can show this just at the It is evident from the summary given by Asin of lust is changed into love, which loves what is above (7), but also for the rest of the chapter on good, right and true, and the quality of anger Empedocles. changes into that of combat, so that what is (as shown in the preceding note) does not come bad, vain and mendacious is defeated, and at from Porphyry at all, last the noble partial soul united with both (the a$-Sahraziri. Even the passage 265, 4-11, which finds its counterpart in Since this author died 1243 and

is therefore substantially later than a$-Sahrastäni was to be (d. 1153), we come to the simple conclusion that occurs frequently in them. a$-Sahrazüri took the above-mentioned passages from the work of a$-Sahrastäni. Nothing shows is bracketed with Pythagoras as that both might go back to Ibn Masarra. Kadaouoi are given: fr. 128 (78) (with the excep- What Ibn Masarra taught and where he obexpected, of meat (7). the name of Empedocles At the beginning he an adversary The following quotations from the tion of v. 9) and later one its vv. 8-10 (®); further tained his knowledge of Empedocles, remains at fr. 139 (8°) and 124,2 (5). present Syriac two passages (8°) of lesser importance. Empedocles of the DiAdcogpos iotooia, an Arabic is for Porphyry one of the precursors and champan translation open question. Was it the adaptation or even (the last and less likely possibility) a knowledge of the originals? An answer To these we may add ions of abstinence (8). It is unnecessary to show again the same thing will be given only when we shall have the extant for the doctrine of Soul. text of Ibn Masarra (??). that Porphyry, whenever he speaks of Empedo- The basis of all discussion is the fact that the Of course all this implies cles, is only too inclined to read him with neoabove-treated passage of aë-Sahrastäni goes back Platonic eyes; to Porphyry, has supplied proof enough for this. because it is the latter who has the examination of our passage The question quoted in his writings for purposes of comparison remains, whether it has also yielded something numerous fragments of Empedocles. And since for the true Empedocles. No need to tell where If we leave aside the Porphyry is the only one, as we shall show presthis may be sought for. ently, to know some things of Empedocles, we details, confirmations and coincidences contained may safely conclude that he himself still read the in our passage, the novelty in it is the role of the original Empedocles. “prophet”” and noAırıxos, liberator of the soul ($) A survey of the fragments cited by Porphyry and regulator of the world. elicits a peculiar picture. Fr. 105 alone is taken from Empedocles’s Nature. great didascalic poem on On the other side, no less than seven fragments are culled from the Kadaguot. 4. Of these, fr. 115 is frequently cited (?), fr. 126 occurs The Aramaic version of the story of Ahigar, also in Plutarch (de esu carn. 2, 3 p. 998 c), but found in eleven more or less incomplete papyros fr. 128, as well as 129, 3-6 occur with Porphyry shreds from Elephantine, led down to the query alone. Porphyry, therefore, utilized the original about the origin of this piece of most ancient Kadapuoi, and indeed mentions them by name in literature. From later times, the book is presfr. erved Syriac, 139. This observation is of decisive import for an evaluation of the passage found in a$-Sahbeginning Empedocles's shows that sentence, according to neo-Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavonian, neo-Greek and Roumanian adaptations ($5). rastani. The in The Aramaic version was writwhich ten down about 430 B.C.; was it not only the earliest, but also the original one? A. Cowley, who teaching had another “start”, Porphyry was bringing something discussed the matter thoroughly (85), after weignew in front of what was hitherto current in the hing all the evidence came to the conclusion that doxographic literature as the opinion of Empedoit was a translation from Old Persian into Aramaic; cles. He was conscious that he was thus proposing at least the Aramaic text came into being under a for discussion something unknown or forgotten: strong Old Persian Influence; but the book was an outline of the Empedoclean doctrine originally soul, which followed that of physics. of the If the latter written in Akkadian and was composed in the neo-Babylonian period about 550. went back to the didascalic poem Zleot gicewe, Cowley’s formulation shows that it is possible then the former could not be based on anything to find evidence for contacts with Old Persian else but the Kadapuoí. This agrees with the ob- (at least in his opinion), servation that Porphyry in his extant writings answer quotes this poem by far more frequently than any question whether it is other. Persian, As a$-Sahrastäni speaks of another, i.e. with sufficient but that we cannot assurance the central a translation from Old or simply one that was made in the a second start, thus in the ancien editions the Achaemenian Kadaouoi came after the two books /Teot pécewc (7). remarks put forward in several forms by Cowley Tzetzes (5) could even allude as TH toltw Tor prov (15). to the Kaÿaouoi | period. We must add that the as support to his contention do not bear close scrutiny. The discussions on slaughter and sacrifice of According to him, *twr appears as the name animals, on partaking of meat lead back logically of Assyria instead of the ’swr that was to be to Empedocles’s four books expected; and this reminds of Old Persian adurd-. on abstinence.

There is no doubt that the latter form is emdic, can be thought of only under the Achaemeployed ind the Old Persian version of the Achanians. emenian inscriptions. This, however, does not imply that the But already R. G. Kent (#7) text was translated from Old Persian, but only registers avurá— under the catchword “ from the that it came into being in Achaemenian times. Semitic ’’. And We have ’swr in Hebrew (also ’S7), also in the Panammii inscription 1. 7 and in the © inscription of Bar Rakib (88) 1. 9; further, Assyr. as-Sur. both observations exclude an Akkadic original. If the Ahiqar story arose in Aramaic language But there also the parallel forms Jew.- and Achaemenian times, then everything points Aram. attür, Syr. atür and ’ Adovo in Tobit 14, 4; to this version being not only the earliest for "Adovota in 14, 15 (side by side with ’Acadoioz 1, 3; us, but also the original one. 10; 22; 14, 4) can be dated in the late Sth century, the book in the Sinaiticus. If the Aramaic Ahigar writes regularly ’twr, there is no reason Since the papyrus may have been composed not much earlier. In to treat this differently from {gl Cowley no. 10, 5 favour of this contention we may adduce the confronted fact that its with Sg/ everywhere else. Aramaic peculiarity, It is an and without a doubt Old Persian adurd- goes back to the Aramaic form, and not the other way round. apposition of corresponding to smh to an belongs to The Aramaic text is divided into the- story of Ahiqar (ll. 1-78) and his wise sayings (ll. 79- The second reason put forward by Cowley is the first literary mention this period. the personal Old Persian N. N. 223). name, an nama. Alex., The latter older occur contemporary strom. 1,15,69 also with Democritus, of Plato (®). (cf. Euseb., Clemens praep. ev. But postponed smh occurs also, as already seen 10, 4) says: Aéyetat... tiv ° Axındoov oti}Anv Eouevevby Cowley (®), in no. 28, 4; 5; 9; 13 and no. 66, 1. deloav Tois idiots ovvrdafaı ovyyoduuacıw. We can add now Brooklyn Papyri no. 8,3 and ter passage we are told that Democritus went to with feminine suffix no. 2,3: 5,2; 4: 6,3: 7,8. Babylonia. E. G. Kraeling remarks (9): “In Babylonian F. Nau (*) tried to show, In a latstarting from the style the name of the servant is followed by the Syriac version, that the sayings of Democritus word ‘his name’, i. e. ‘by name?” = Sum-Su. contained in the collection The same usage occurs in the Ar$äma letters. with those of Ahigar. Lately that G. R. Driver has taken up derivation from Old Persian liminated by Kraeling’s again the that had been remark (%); confuted by the lack of the 3. but sing. ethis is suffix in Old Persian and by its presence in Babylonian. Lastly, ne sont ni aussi nombreux ni aussi frappants que nous pourrions le désirer ” (*5). Nau imputes this unsatisfactory result to the unfavourable tradition, which preserved only few sayings of Democritus and only But the Aramaic text, which saw the light just in Aramaic time to be known by him (*), did not improve occurs equate But he had to concede contact employed ’Ar with an Old Persian pasáva. word to de agree often texts too. wants points Stobaeus the the Cowley “les of repeatedly in other It is found in the remaining Cowley late versions of the Ahiqar story (°°). the situation. The But even sayings of Democritus pre- Papyri, in the Brooklyn Papyri, in the Arsama served in Greek show no convincing coincidences letters and in Biblical Aramaic. even with the original. The last to take position on this problem has been W. B. Henning (??). H. as Thus all the arguments that can be adduced in favour of a translation fall to the ground. from Old Persian, Diels declared the statement of Clemens spurious, and W. Kranz followed him, as late as the sixth edition of the Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (1952). Clemens’s words stand as Nevertheless it remains cerno. 299 among the spurious fragments, and the tain that this version of the Ahiqar story came Adnotatio reproduces the arguments that decided into being in Achaemenian times. Diels to reject it. like hyl ’twr (1. 55; 61) “army” proper. An expression Of the seven arguments addoes not point to the duced, their author calls nn. 3 and 4 “ striking The “ wise scribe, the counbut not decisive”, no. 7 “at least striking ”’; sellor of all Assyria ” (1. 12), the keeper of the they can, therefore, be left out of account. seal (1. 3), 6 doytowvoydos nai reference dtovxntyns gxdoyiorís (Tobit xat nothing to do with it. éni daxtvdiov xai 1, 22 Sin.) had to the Diels reckoned as non-classical ¿yevgdnv, The which ‘ decisive’’, has been elimi- Rather he was concerned nated by Kranz’s quotation of Archyt. B 1 (°). with what could also be termed y}, the aris- As to the “ wry” manner of expression (no. 6), tocracy, the high-class people, the high officialit is based on a misunderstanding of the final dom, i. e. all that Old Persian kava— implies (922). sentence. Besides, the fact that the scribe of the king employs Aramaic only, with exclusion of Akka- Zdy Tois näcıw ém Ersa Gydduovta Ent Estvns éyermünr can only mean “ Together with these (including the doredovdnta:), 1 was finally

80 years on foreign soil’’. cording to Diod. Democritus, who 14, 11,5 lived till the acage of 90 and &rı xaic dy listened to Mages and Chaldaeans (Diog. Laert. 9, 34), at an advanced age only. ITeooida sentence nat Solon, Homer, Hippocrates and others (14); and chiefly the sayings of Democritus (19). can have said this They are less numerous than those of the other philosophers; but the supply univocal, i. e. verbal coincidences with the Ahigar. éxñide yao Bafulóva te xai Alyvntov with This agrees with the general import, which looks back to a past life. Clemens’s which included the “ Wise Sayings” of Zeno, toîs te Mayoıs xai toic ieoedor padnteów» gives the explanation. Already Th. Nöldeke (1%) remarked that two of the sayings of Democritus there given occur also in the Syriac version of the Ahiqar story, In no case Clemens meant herewith an allusion and a third one in the Armenian and Slavonian to the work neoi tay Ev BafvAdvi leo0v yoaupator, version. because Persis and Egypt are mentioned on the coincidence escaped Noldeke (197): Ahigar 1. side of Babylonia. I thly wWllybPjwkr °Itmr [wlyrqwk “ Be not sweet, That book can only have But another, much more important 148 treated the cuneiform script, and Ahiqar’s sayso that thou mayest not be devoured, be not ings were not noted down in that, but in the bitter, so that thou mayest not be vomited ”. Such pillars in Aramaic script Sahrastäni 305,20 Cureton: lá takun hulwan and language with edicts and religious precepts jiddan, lalla tubla wa-la murran yiddan walla of Asoka have now been made known by the tulfaz ‘be not too sweet, so that thou mayest Inscriptions of Taxila and Pul-i Daruntah; the not be devoured, and be not too bitter, so that latter speaks thou mayest not be vomited ””. Aramaic script. even of what is pillar or stele (O'm[wd’]) (°°). written on the Ahiqar’s wise say- The saying is of an unique vividness and preings too may have been brought to the knowledge gnancy: it could hardly be invented independenof the public in this way. tly, above all in this coinciding expression. Lastly, alif we remain doubtful in front of Nau’s combi- Anudxoıros yao tods BaßvAwviovg Adyovs nations, the use of Ahigar’s wisdom is thus proved the beginning teration. sentence needs no MÜixods nenointaı can only mean: Babylonian Adyot “ Democritus employed the vot)’ (19°). This is explained by what follows: “It as ethical (Adis indeed said that he translated the stele of Akikaros and included it among his own writings ”. from the “ Sayings of Democrates ” from further what ‘ Wise preserved in Stobaeus gives Sayings’’ of is beyond all doubt. Democritus must have come to know the sayings of Ahigar in the course of the late 5th century. This agrees with the time of composition of the Aramaic work, which (fr. 35-115) was determined above on the basis of its form (fr. 169-297), Democritus a&-Sahrastani’s for the later versions by three instances, and for the earliest by only one instance, which however apart It has not hitherto been noticed that, and Even Kitáb and tradition (198). are al-milal wa-n-ntihal. 4. It is peculiar that his data have been exploited for Empedocles only (1%). But there is no reason In order to substantiate what we said above, for limiting ourselves to one philosopher, when we cannot avoid translating the whole of Sahwe have here information on other Pre-Socratics rastani’s section 305, 2- 306, 20. The attempt of too of their works (and numer- Th. led We mistakes in this instance too. and fragments ous ones at that). can go much farther. Sahrastani’s manual has proved to be a valuable source in several ways. ment of Mazdak’s one), which It has supplied a fragwritings (the only possible the philosophical made classification of that revolutionary (1%). preserved for us Pildcoyos ictooia, an extract which from (beside extant It has Porphyry’s much else Haarbrücker (1850-1) has to several “The wise sayings of Democritus (dimogratis). He was one of the most remarkable wise men in the times of Bahman b. Isfendiyär. He and Hippocrates lived at the same time, before Plato. He had (definite) opinions in philosophy, mainly on the beginnings away. Aristoteles of used being to and on passing prefer his (Demothat has not yet been utilized) includes the table critus’s) discourses to those of his master Plato, of contents of Empedocles’s Kadaouoi. the divine one, and he Lastly, the Arabic work has preserved a fragment from Porphyry’s letter to Anebo, which elucidates to great extent the antecedents of Iamblichos’s writing on the mysteries (1%). This time we are concerned with the florilegium utilized by Sahrastani (or his predecessor), 12 (Aristoteles) was unjust in this. Said Democritus: External beauty is represented by the painters through colours. the internal one, nobody But as to represents it except he to whom it really belongs, 1. e. its (the internal beauty’s) creator and evperís.

He said: It is not meet for thee to consider thyself a man, while anger eliminates thy judhis hand on his lips. He replied: He was told: Know not! I cannot. He wanted to express by this that the inner things (bawátin) gement and follows thy desire (1%). He said: It is not meet for men to be tested at the time of their humiliation, but at the time fall under the free decision. do not He pointed to necessity within (sirr) is determined by necessity as origin (Audut), is without rule of their strength and might. And as iron is tested Because in the furnace, thus man is tested in (the posregards session of) might, so that the good in him be over his heart, although by his heart he is more separated from evil. than his limbs. He said: It is meet for thee to begin with the sciences after thou hast cleansed thy soul faults and accustomed it to the virtues. of For, freely man and free decision without. his decide regards his innermost (asl), most (asl). On this saying there is a second explanation. According He said: He who gives possessions to his bro- Therefore, as long as he cannot as there is no possibility for him to shape his innerif thou dost not do it, thou shalt have no advantage from the sciences. he between to it, he intelligence alluded and to the senses, difference because, as ther, gives him his treasures, and he who gives regards intellectual cognition, a withdrawal from him his knowledge and his good advice, gives it is unimaginable. him his soul. cognition) is here, it is not imaginable to forget He said: It is not meet for thee to reckon profit, And once it (the intellectual it through free will and to withdraw from it — in which a great damage lies concealed, as (real) as profit, and (to reckon) damage, in which a great that intelligence is not of the kind of the senses profit lies concealed, as (real) damage, nor (is it and soul does not belong to the sphere of the meet), concerning a life that is not laudable, opposed body. to sensual cognition. This shows It was said that free decision with man is compounded of two influences, of whom one is to reckon it as (real) life. He said: He who is content with the name, the influence of an imperfection, the other the is like him who is content with smell, without influence of a perfection. eating. inclines through a decision of nature and tem- He said: A clever enemy is better than a stupid perament. To the first one man And as regards the second influence, (man) is weak in it, if help does not reach him friend. He said: The fruit of might is negligence, and from intelligence, rational distinction and Aoyos and the fruit (nata), so that penetrating insight may be obof decay is the appearance of idleness, and the tained and straightforward resoluteness arise and fruit truth be loved and vanity be detested. the fruit of negligence is decay, of idleness is foolishness and crime and As long as such help does not come from the capacity repentance and sadness. He said: It is necessary for man to cleanse to distinguish, a prevalence of the second inhis heart from cunning and guile, as he cleanses fluence shows itself. his body from the kinds of fornication. not compounded of these two influences and were And if free decision were with regard to another, not separated in both directions, then man would that he today follow on thy foot and to-morget the whole of what he strives after with his row... (110). free will without delay and hesitation, without He said: Wish not, He said: Be not too sweet, so that thou mayest not be devoured, and not too bitter, so that He said: The tail of the dog acquires him his and his mouth acquires (him) beatings. There was in Athens an untalented painter. He came to Democritus and said: house, that I may paint it. needing advice and favour. As regards the opinion held by this wise man, thou mayest not be vomited. food, reflecting for a moment and without uncertainty, without Plaster thy He (Democritus) replied: Paint it first, so that I may plaster it afterward. I found nobody who remembers it and has refuted it, or examined it and leaned toward it ””. There are 15 sayings. They are introduced by a short remark on Democritus and concluded by two extensive interpretations concerning the last saying. Democritus is placed in the times of Bahman He said: As knowledge is to one who does not b. Isfendtyar. The latter is equated with Artaaccept it and, when he accepts it, still does not xerxes I know, thus is to a sick man medicine by which i@vth, Bombay 1271, he is not healed. called dirázdest (uaxodyeio) (2). logical determination He was told: eyes. Look not! And he closed his He was told: Hear not! And he covered his ears. He was told: Speak not! And he placed (464-423) (4); cf. 1, is Mirkhond’s Kıtab-ı 187, of 15, where he is some This chronoimportance; because, if Democritus’s dxur, i. e. his fortieth year, is placed still under Artaxerxes I, then the

Apollodorian birth date 01.80 = 460-457 (FGr- 5. Hist 244 F 36 II 1030) is out of question. Only the second date in Diog. Laert. 9, 41 comes into question, according to whom Thrasyllus (43) the preface to the edition of the writings The picture presented by the fragments of in Democritus shall now be completed by a second (ra group of these, taken from the same florilegium 700 Tis avayrocewms Toy Anuoxoitov BiBliwvy) plathat was utilized by a$-Sahrastäni. ced the birth of Democritus in 01.77, 3 = 470-469. back to Theophrastus’s writing on music. We can therefore in all certainty lead back the give their translation and commentary as well. above quoted sayings to Thrasyllus’s edition, where they must have stood in the Önournuarwv muxy (book group of number writings, missing) the under the “Hdixa 9,46 =A 33 Diels). This has been ascertained above. (Diog. agrees first Laert. with what The explanations are still left. When we are told that man is conditioned by necessity as regards his origin, this opinion of Democritus is not handed down directly. But it can be inferred from A 106 (Aristot., de rep. 4, 471b 30 f.), where the talk is about £7v anodvnoxew. When the necessity and of death is discussed (did Ti tote räcı uév Gvayxaioy anodavety xtÀ.), then the contrary too, 1. e. life and gin, must be assigned its orlthe character of necessity. Within the compass of the second explanation, the equivalence of intelligence and soul, of votc (337, 14 Cureton) phrastus (Fwfrstys). toteles’s pupils ‘ Wise Sayings They go We of Theo- This man belonged to Arisand to the the latter’s companions. great ones among He followed him (Aristoteles) (or: he [Aristoteles] appointed him [Theophrastus] 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. composed many commentaries and He esteemed works (of his own), chiefly on music (f7-l-mustgaz; sic) ”. In regard to the writings of Theophrastus, Ibn al-Oifti (@vih 107,1 Lippert) says something similar: “ The books of his uncle (father's brother) were studied in his school, and he wrote great works (of his whose source in own)”. this case is For Ibn al—Qifti, unknown, Theoand yvyr, is common stock of the extant evidenphrastus was a nephew (brother’s son) of Arisce on the doctrine of Democritus toteles (106, 17) (14). 113). (A 101; 106; For the rest, it corresponds with the con- That he, a native of Eresus, possessed at least real estate at Stagira, is attraposition of intellectual and sensual cognition, tested in Theophrastus's will. of voös on the one side and alodnoıs and pavracía stani too, on writings of Aristoteles. the 71, 19f.); other of (A 113 = Philopon., didvora and aiodmoacs de (B anima 125; cf. B 9 aAndeıa and aioÿmoas). Democritus himself speaks of yvouns... y de oxotin. In duo... oxorin idéat, Y pev yvnoin, he includes éyis, dx07, d0u%, yevors, pañors (B 11). Lastly, also the two “influences ’’ on the free decision of man occur in the fragments of Democritus. They are eidwia which approach man (éuseddlew): xal ToöTwv ta pev eivar authority Ayadonoıd, (B ta 166). de xaxonoıd adds the Correspondingly, B 175 tayada are separated as a gift of the gods from the xaxa xai Biafeod xai avwgedéa, which £ure- With as-Sahra- $Surüh must mean commentaries (337, 17 Cureton) on “ What is quoted of him, is that he said: (1) The divine does not move, and his opinion was: it varies not and changes not, neither in essence nor in the idea of the actions ”’. P. Moreaux, to whom (if there is no express mention to the contrary), all the following explanations are due, interprets: world, without being this act. God moves the affected in the least by This would be an echo of Aristot., Metaph. A, 7, perhaps xwvet où xwodpevos. (337, 18 Cureton) “ He said: (2) Heaven is Adlovot dia vod tvpddtynta xai ayyvwpoovrny man. the dwelling of the stars and the earth is the There can be no doubt, that the explanations dwelling of men, according to the fact that they stand in the best of the tradition; they too must (the men) are a likeness and image of what is go back to Thrasyllus. in heaven. And hereby the authen- They (#5) (the stars) are fathers and ticity of the verbal fragments, the Wise Sayings, rulers; they have souls and discriminating intelis guaranteed. ligence, but vegetal souls do not suit them. ings into Translations of Democritan writ- Syriac mentioned by and al-Qifti context shows that thence into 181,5f. Arabic Lippert. physical writings were Theare refore, they undergo neither increase nor dimi- The nution ”. in- The celestial bodies have soul and mind; this tended above all, which of course does not exclutheory of the intellects of the constellations goes de the translation of others. back in the last instance to Aristot., Metaph. A 8; The rasd'il cited in passing 1. 7 and Fihrist 354, 23 Flügel are the cf. also de caelo B 12, 292a 18 f. spurious letters (68 C 2-6 Diels). body undergoes neither increase nor diminution: The celestial

de caelo A 3, 270a 12 f. B. Kytzler adds to this explanation a of Moraux reference pression natura ... fragment Theophrastus's from parente to the exac principe in the zeoi uovo in Singing causes the soul to be for itself, 1. e. free and independent of the body, (338, 4 Cureton) “ He said: (5) the soul (an- If this fragment goes back to the above-mennafs corr.; an-nufus Cureton) is tioned writing of Theophrastus, we might supthe sounds, when are that a regard to more attentive than she is in front of what is evident to her and whose meaning has become clear to tion her ”. theory of the perhaps in concealed, going theory of music. topos, these back to the Pythagoreans, effected the conjuncbetween Hellenistic as the influence of the soul. Marius Victorinus GL. 6, 159, 8 f. pose exactly rejoicing in food and drink frees the body from constellations and Harmony of the spheres (= mu- The soul reaches its climax in listening when sic of the constellations) is the hymn of praise of heaven to the highest god. Music of men is an imitation of the music of the spheres, and thus a sort of glorification of God by mankind. (337, 20 Cureton) high form (338, 1 “ He said: Cureton) (3) the sounds conceal, which e. are incomprehensible, to her. The Singing is a of language, i. more than when the sounds have become clear following fragments of Theophrastus in a$-Sahrastäni belong no more to the writing is difficult to understand for the soul and escapes neot definition of its essence. It (the soul) causes it to yet another point of contact, viz. to the sec- (the high form of language) to become perceptible tion on Pythagoras contained in a$-Sahrastäni. in the form of sounds, and arouses thereby sadness. It (the singing) causes every sort of distinction to become mute within its (the soul’s) compass”. uovoixhs. There Nevertheless, (270, 18-271,6 Cureton) we referred are told that the world consists of spiritual tones, who can be counted intellectually, not sensually (harmony of the spheres). It seems to mean that singing is the highest Moraux In the nether “ worlds ””, i. e. in the lower spheres of heaven, language form of language, a form however which escapes does not prove so simple and so perfect as in the every rational interpretation. upper ones (like harmony). The end of the With Theophrastus fragment could mean: singing abolishes distinctoo music (= harmony of tones) is a higher form tions or distinctive species within the compass of of the soul. language. In other words: through music every Then 271, 10-20 Cureton. discrepancy in the soul is eliminated; the soul is ecomes a unity. Man as microcosmus . a likeness of macrocosmus. The good condition of the soul corresponds to the harmony To the explanation of Moreaux we may add that once more we find points of contacts with extant fragments wis (116). of Theophrastus’s xeot uovot- Music as TO yırdusvov xivmua pedwdntixov neot tHY wvynv (fr. 89 Wimmer), as well its contrapposition to @wvn, the last fragment implies. agree with as of the tones. Therefore the soul is saddened or gladdened by the action of the tones. Lack of harmony, on the contrary, causes the death of the soul. This corresponds to the fragment of Theophrastus 337, 20f. Cureton. what If Aénn comes for- Lastly, 277, 1-4: The harmonic associations ward as one of the three povoixis doyai (fr. 90), are delights of a higher kind, praise and sanctithis its ~“Exotactc, fication of god are food of the spiritual essence. corresponding to the highest and irrational en- We may compare Theophrastus’s saying 338, 2 f. hancement of language, is found also with Plu- Food and drink accordingly represent the food tarch, Mor. 38 A, to which we can add the comof the body but singing, being an imitation of parison with rhetors and actors 623 B: xai tods the harmony of the spheres and a praise of God, ó%t toas would be a peculiar “food ”” of the soul. tols receives Ev now totic OÛvouois counterpart. éemtddyots atoéua tH Hal TOUS Önoxpıras év uelwdey nooodyovtas OOOUEY HAL TODEVTELVOVYTAS THY Mwriy. The musical writing, portions of the Pythagorean which in the last instance lies at the (4) Singing is sobasis of a$-Sahrastäni’s section, contain thought mething that belongs to the soul, but in no wise of the post-Aristotelian, or at least of the postto the body — it (viz. the body) turns it (the Platonian Pythagoreismus. soul) away from what brings to it happiness —, are the coincidences with the fragments of Theoas taking delight in food and drink is something phrastus. (338, 2 Cureton) “ He said: The more significant that belongs to the body and in no wise to the soul”. Franz Altheim and Ruth Stiehl

NOTES ALTHEIM-STIEHL, (2) Th. Ein asiatischer Staat, I, (2) ALTHEIM-STIEHL, Op. (3) A. CHRISTENSEN, n. creator, cit., I, p. 201. sous Op. I, p. 174. (5) For the compare FE. ALTHEIM STIEHL, following Porphyrios cit., und les Sassanides?, that he created out of ($) ALTHEIM-STIEHL, (7) Fihrist I, 245, Op. 1955, pp. cit. p. and 1954; F. hádihi kulluha to huwa Another that interpretation he is created is 13 f.; ALTHEIM-STIEHL, Od. cit., Op. cit., pp. soph., p. 2 f.; be On 1, 253, what THEIM-STIEHL, follows but he himself is not caused. 20 fahtahä, translation remain Cause and what is caused In regard of 1. cit., Agathias Op. cit., p. (13) J. Anecdota LAND, ALTHEIM-STIEHL, (14) PRISCIANUS (ed. I. Bywater). 33 f. Op. LYDUS, ALf. The mistake lies in the first part of the conditional clause. Here we tition from 1. It is incomprehensible. cit., pp. pp. Plato ment I, 2, ALTHEIM-STIEHL, 39 OD. f. cit., like a bark (gi$ra—cortex), Plato ArabusI, 25 (Arab.), 4. editor Arabus, (al—‘unsur) and translator ... ” did not 1, 58 (Arab.) right. is simple (basi/). Same statement is simple in the same way as the essence of ‘agl; but the latter is not absolutely simple (basit mutlag). This term is explained thus: it means “unique”, “un- (wähid baht) and indicates the essence of the cause (and thus of the creator). We are further told that nothing caused exists, which is not compounded (murakkab). Thus the “unsur is composed of love and struggle. hayawäaniya ought to be divided into absolutely simple and relationly is usually found. An-nafs The al-bahtmyta “ anima bestialis ’ also in Plato Arabus I, vely simple. 65 creator. 3) (Arab.) left, with quotations. Haarbrücker’s tigiva by translation of an-nafs “speaking soul” is incorrect. yvyi also in Plato Arabus atedly). I, 65 (Arab.) an-natiga. aux Dictionn. On mantigiya Arabes, 2, 684 cf. R. right; al-man- The Aoyex7) right Here the Greek term is rendered nafs with an- Dozy, A.-M. (repe- Suppl. GOICHON, Lexique de la langue philosoph. d’Ibn Sina, Suppl. 35. an-nafs al—aqliva; “agl corresponds to voös and (21) 262, 1 f. (22) 263, 5. (23) Op. cit., after p. 18, 358 f. on p. “ Arab’). Op. (25) Bark and In the cit., p. 16. Approved (still haunted 641. f.), caused: “unsur, ‘agli and nafs. On Here too we have two diffeAs different steps of the cognized. by P. Moraux; (37) Uberweg-Praechter 112, 602. (38) Cf. W. Cited the following de sensu 7 (D. f. The gradation (29) The passage in Vorsokr. aS- 500) = A der frithgriechi- Haarbrücker avoids a decision as to how (49) —ha in “alaiha can refer also to the barks; but 86, but ‘unsur—‘agl-nafs is 35, 76 right. Cf. ARI- 187a20 = A46. is 411 Lexique f. de la langue philosomore this does not change the interpre- 262, 12 f. divided into As the primeval element (al-"unsur) Dilía and WNeixoc, so the universal soul is divided in partial souls. The universal soul, like is GOICHON, once tation. (42) f. phique d’Ibn Sina, Theologie (4) —ha in “alaiha can also indicate spirit and pith, 262, 4, Die 161 f.; he interpreted povin. it makes no difference for the meaning. (28) A JAEGER, schen Denker, p. already hinted at 261, 2 f. A.-M. 2 sonal suffix untranslated. 15, 501 on 362, 4 f. (51) (261, simple, so different steps of the compounded are re- 301, 30 f. 8 nafs to understand —Aa@ in tusbihuha, by leaving the per- Vorsokr. 260, and The use of murakkab agrees last instance, W. KRANZ, (2?) (39) what the creator causes “agi rent employs of one word. by U. pith already with Anaximenes: (26) Theophrastus, Phys. side, ‘unsur, 261, 10 the simple caused, in this case the ‘unsur, (36) 5,5,1 f. Sahrastäni 259, 6 f. 5 therefore, According to 261, 3 the compound comes simple (39) Th. (24) 15, viz. is himself compounded. Empedokles 32. Vorsokr. the simplicity, Absolutely simple is only the cause, the are only relatively simple. with this. of likewise. v. Wilamowitz in SBAW 1929, p. 641 by the conception On the other immediately, vonois, Cf. Plato Arabus I, 58 right (repeatedly). 16 how A double term is employed: bahimiya hayawanyta. Later STOT., “ But when 261, 8, but here a restriction is made: the first ‘unsur mixed ” ‘‘ overpowering ”. (7) The human skin ($ild) stretched upon the flesh (20) a wrong repe- We should translate: (35) Also 261, 2 f. we read that the primeval ele- 102, 23 f. Arıst., (16) aë-Sahrastänt has literally: (19) 18. incredible (34) 23. Syriaca 4, Suppl. Cheikho; 2, 28-31; pp. 24 f. (18) wa—in recognize this mistake. (12) ALTHEIM-STIEHL, (15) P. 18 Cureton’s text and Haarbrücker’s then the caused is below the cause and after it see 22 f.; Op. N. This the cause is not fitter to be a caused than the caused, 18. pp. P. considered: something’’. the caused is fitter to be a caused than the cause, and F. ROSENTHAL, in Orientalia 6, pp. 21 Í. (4) 104 ALTHEIM-STIEHI, 13 f. (10) Fihrist, pleasing; would agree with 260, 16-261, 2: the creator is cause, and 1. 9 f. of must delete /azsa (1. 19, 2nd word); it is vit. An aphardly could out are to be kept separate. 125 f. 14. (8) Kunap., (9) something, He is creator only. “not Empedokles, ALTHEIM, in Neue Rundschau that mubdifa-gat adds something more about the creator. L'Iran (33) ALTHEIM-STIEHL, p. but not 2. (4) R. ‘ ... the position 341 translates: and he only, the totality of all these, is and not that something was with him...’’. 200 f. p. Haarbrücker they are he, the only primeval relatively element and everything simple. Only the absolutely simple and is not and into parts. caused, “ Creator’ cannot be divided

(43) Beutler, Moraux, in RE 22, p. 310 below (cited by the following). (44) According to Empedocles, way together with the no (45) like “the cause”; caused 261, is in 1. fabt‘a in the GOICHON, Op. meaning cit., p. here 201 no. 4 “le see tempérament, ... les mouvements, l’äme végétative ’’; cf. 665. 380 no. 262, (8) 17, 16-19. (49) Fr. 115, Vorsokr. 1%, 356, 9 f. (5°) 1 £ Vorsokr. 16, 356, 30 f. (51) Fr. 115, 263, 3 f. Kadaouoi pp. 646 f. (55) by U. v. WILAMOWITZ, Op. cit. with the fragments of the Kadaguoi. as also be taken in its true meaning remarked by Cureton, is apoc. 3 plur. masc., which is impossible. must be yd’w, subj. or The spelling “he (the prophet) summons’’. Likewise 1. 13 we have to read yksw instead of yskuw”. (58) 263, (°°) As 7 by P. (50) Fr. 35 Vorsokr. 16, 326, 27 f.; cf. fr. 18. giodos Aristot., 291, 41. = 15, Vot- Op. eit., p. 162 on fr. creptodos cf. Plato Arabus W. JAEGER, OP. cit., p. (63) 252, 10 f.; cf. 394, 4 f.; 419, 2 f. from Ibn Sina. in Class. Philol. 1950, p. are like 16, 278, 22; 35, ter are crucial differences. In place of the recurring Kvxjot we meet with ma'ad, placed at the end of time. The certainly not from Porphyry. shows clearly Philosophie Op. cit., p. 67, n. 14. the Empedoclean verses no proof in first missing, contemporaneous with of and all the ddedcnorda and secondly Empedocles giwhat is disected into a se- Theophrastus. K. E, Nau, Histoire et sagesse d’Ahigar Vl Assyrien, REINHARDT, pp. 74 Op. cit., Aramaic Papyri, pp. (85) Old 8 (88) This is the Perstan?, E. p. (89) On Ahigar L On 8, 3: p. (* On L (1957), 6. pp. J. FRIEDRICH, in 345 f. 1: p. 226. 229; cf. on 2, 3: p. 145. 3, 1: Aramaic Documents of the fifth Cen1957, p. 45. BSOS 13 (1949), (92) In (a) ALTHEIM-STIEHLS, den 177. 205 f. $ correct reading: 26 (°°) C., p. f. (86) Achaimeniden DIELS-KRANZ, 1 p. 84. Die avamdische Sprache un(1959), Die (5) Op. cit., p. 39. (6) Op. Ges. (98) 92 f. Fragmente der Vorsokraticit., p. 39. Wiss. N. F. 1946, pp. Islam, p. 1-126. 237. 14,4 (1913), p. 22, 1%, p. took the Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 431, 1. (99) W. B. HENNING, in BSOS 13, p. 83. (100) Incorrect also with Ed. MEYER, Der Papyrus- (101) In the last 1912, p. instance 123 n. by W. dokles, p. 32; cf. U. v. WILAMOWITZ, 1. Kranz, in Empe- SBAW 1929, p. 641. (7°) M. Asín PALACIOS, Op. cit., pp. 58 f. (1) f. fund von Elephantine, des but the verses Theophrastus, moreover, cited (85) Gott. (68) M. Asín PALACIOS, Abenmassarra y su escuela, HORTEN, de pietate. same position. the rank of what we owe him. (6) M. and 2, 26, de (9) Op. cit., pp. 288 f. Th. NÓLDEKE, in Abhandl. It cannot be made out, whence 1914; reprinted in Obras Escogidas I, Theophrastus, “ prophet ” aS-Sahrastäni got this passage; contrast from It is by no Empedoclean verses (9) Op. cit., pp. 35 f. the the whole is connected with a theory of light that is the taken the Laert. 9, 41 f. and the Suda. a single accomplishes the liberation of the partial souls. Lastly, Rather that ker 25, pp. 83 f. gives the information, above all Diog. is missing and his place is taken by the Creator, who clearly of later origin. Op. (84) (98) 364. 1. 4 f. an external similarity with the passage disthere as tury B. him”. (87) At the end of a$-Sahrastäni’s chapter on Emabove, are Orientalta N. pedocles the soul is again spoken of: 265, 4-11. Inscussed 2,20 1909, 173. ‘ who ascertained 2,21 ves (65) We can also translate: “ so that through their of also from the REINHARDT, Cf. also BEUTLER, Op. cit., p. 311. oivoonovda are 177. (these mens’) love to him his enemies are overcome ””. pite K. (83) up by Theophrastus; 1, (62) (66) Vorsokr. cf. are 30; xe- K. Haarbrücker: On the fact that the second place favour of the four steps of the sacrificial custom set Moraux. (5) (8) Th. 18 f. We may add that 111 s. v. REINHARDT, 15, 365, belong to the 1, 3. quence 114, s. v. — Kóúxioc in fr. 17, 13; 26, 1; 12; Plato Arabus, 1, 627. no other verse from the Kadaouot. Phys. A 4 p. 187a 20 f. = Vorsokr. 1°, On daur p. in On the renovation of the cosmic revolution W. JAEGER, cit., (7) abst. f. pointed out sokr. If, 314, Op. 522. 7, stand on another leaf. of “ overpowering ’’. (57) yd'‘w, WILAMOWITZ, The latter is quoted 2, 20 As pointed out by P. Moraux. (56) Jalaba can U. v. WILA- 633 and 640. chronological point of view, means (54) Compared v. (78) Vorsokr. (2) Th. Haarbriicker mistook adka for azka. (55) Op. cit., pp. Chil. (75) 14 f. 17, 7-8. 263, f. ctt., pp. 171 f. (47) Fr. Fr. 89 On the “citation by Porphyry see (74) U. A.-M. la chaleur naturelle (16) (73) ‘ temperamental ””. accepted pp. MOWITZ, ‘ Natural”, as Haarbrücker translates, has no plausible meaning at the side of On (7) On this see H. RITTER in W. KRANZ, Empedokles, (102) pp. ALTHEIM-STIEHL, Ein asiatischer Staat, I, 1954,

(103) ALTHEIM-STIEHL, Philologia sacra, 1958, p. 100 f.; Geschichte der Hünnen 3 (1961), 126 f. p. ALTHEIM-STIEHL, Porphyrios und Empedokles, (1%) 305, 2 f. Cureton. p. (196) Op. cit., (197) He remarked Armenian 22. thus of a mistake an imperfect of ‘ maltraiter, for yata@’uka waf’a. (yf’wk But the and the agreement Slavonian versions: for inter- The verb with an Acc. personae means no sense. Be it added that we would have the same piller’’, which verbal form (even if with changed suffixes) only makes as in the with the first Op. cit., different spelling of the same form should occur so p. 36 n. 10. (198) thought ytwk), pretation becomes difficult. 10. Syriac, A famous Arabic scholar, whom we asked for advice, part of the sentence. It is unlikely that two closely near to each other, unless the scribe misunder- Although we repeatedly drew attention to stood the text. But how would he have interpreted it? Sahrastäni, no scholar of Greek philosophy (among Th. Haarbrücker translates: “he does the same ””, whom we do not count ourselves) has hitherto come without us being able to follow the trend of his thought. forward to carry on, we have begun. by learning Arabic, the work A reference to fragments of Aeschines with Sphettos (Porphyrios und Empedocles, pp. seduced nobody. Democritean 16 f.) Perhaps the hope of finding further fragments will prove efficacious; the whole of the section 305, 2-306, 20 seems to be valuable. (199) We owe the correct translation to letter of G. Levi Della Vida. (10) yé'wk. Also yata’uka ‘he withdraws This would give: it should not be expected that one should follow somebody, day should the contrary. and the next But a use of the accusative of the person, from which one withdraws, is not documented. 18 We would expect yata’u ‘anka. PARKER-DUBBERSTEIN, Babylonian Chronology, 17 £. (112) The data with F. IUSTI, Ivanisches Namenbuck, 1895, 374 1. under 2. (H3) On (114) This of the The first thought is of /@a (a) “to go away, to with-draw’’. from you’’. a private (11) p. him see remark W. was VETTER in RE 6 unnoticed by the A, 581 f. author article on Theophrastus in the RE. (115) Peculiarly striking is the alternance of —hum (fa-hum, la-hum 1. 17) and —ha (la-ha 1. 18). In itself, we would apply —hum rather to men and -hä to the stars. (116) In the last instance Regenbogen in RE. Suppl. 7.