No More Learning

13
;
(Karsten, p. 142, v. 392, &c. ;
ts of the ostentation and haugh-
'S, p. 29, &c. ) In like manner
s against the power of evil and
nds to teach men how to break
e unwearied winds, and how
zin; how to obtain from dark
:
ought, and tree-feeding rivers
immer (ibid. v. 425, &c. ),-
ions, perhaps, cxpressive of
ifant science, which had only
pment, rather than in bis
V. With equal pride be
of the man- the ancient
id not know whether he
menides—who, possessed
nd intellectual treasures,
is in all naturc, whenever
is mind he attempted tº
. ) The time was one of
al movement, and Em-
connected by friendship
n and Pausanias (Dios.
; Plut. de Is. et Os. P
}; Suid. s. t. ; comp.
oth Pythagoreans, and
and Anaxagoras also
1
C. ; comp. Karsten, p.
carried away by that
as to be the nearer the
rceived the way that
2 perfect power over
quence of a perfect
had spoken of the
ponnesus, and of the
him there (Diog.
3. p. 620); others
and in the newly.
446 (Suid. &. t.
but it was only
de him trare in
n. H. N. XX. I,
His death is
Gis life: a tradi-
Les Ponticus, a
epresented him
earth, like a
ad perished in
g. Laërt. Vi
, &c. ; comp
cested by the
at the age of
writers, who
et up against
Laërt. rii.
ples of Em-
jorgias, the
with our
by Plato.
-) Amorg
und which
he list in
inion only
Nature,
siderable
00 hexa-
e abore
to three
narians.
) The
Katapuoi, a poem said to have consisted of 3000 to reduce that which appears to us as a coming into
verses, seems to have recommended particularly a existence to a process of mixture and separation of
good moral conduct as the means of averting epi- unalterable substances ; but for the sime reason
demics and other evils. (See the fragments in they were obliged to give up both, the Hemcleitcan
Karsten, p. 144, vers. 403, &c. ; comp. Aristot. supposition of one original fundamental power, and
Eth. Nic. vii. 5 ; Eudem. vi. 3. ) Empedocles was the earlier Jonic hypothesis of one original sub-
undoubtedly acquainted with the didactic poems of stince which produced all changes out of itself and.
Xenophanes and Parmenides (Hermipp. and Theo- again absorbed them. The supposition of an origi-
phrast. ap. Diog. Laërt. viii. 55, 56)-allusions to the nal plurality of unalterable elementary substances
latter can be pointed out in the fragments,—but he was absolutely necessary.
And thus we find in
seems to have surpassed them in the animation and the extant fragments of the didactic poem of Em.
richness of his style, and in the clearness of his pedocles, the genuineness of which is attested be-
descriptions and diction; 60 that Aristotle, though, yond all doubt by the authority of Aristotle and
on the one hand, he acknowledged only the metre other ancient writers, the most unequivocal state-
as a point of comparison between the poems of ment, made with an evident regard to the argu-
Empedocles and the epics of Homer, yet, on the mentation of Parmenides, thut a coming into
other hand, had characterised Empedocles as existence from a non-existence, as well as a complete
Homeric and powerful in his diction. (Poet
. I, ap: death and annihilation, are things impossible ; what
Diog. Laërt. viii. 57. ) Lucretius, the greatest of all we call coming into existence and death is only
didactic poets, speaks of him with enthusiasm, and mixture and separation of what was mixed, and
evidently marks him as his model. (See especially the expressions of coming into existence and de-
Lucret. i. 727, &c. ) We are indebted for the first struction or annihilation are justified only by our
comprehensive collection of the fragments of Em- being obliged to submit to the usus loquendi.
pedocles, and of a careful collection of the testi- (Fragm. 77, &c. , 345, &c. ) The original and un-
monies of the ancients concerning his doctrines, to alterable substances were termed by Empedocles
Fr. W. Sturz (Empedocles Agrigentinus, Lipsiae, the roots of things (Técrapa Tv Tártwv pituuata,
1805), and lately Simon Karsten has greatly dis- Fragm. vers. 55, &c. , 74, &c. ); and it was he who
tinguished himself for what he has done for the first established the number of four elements, which
criticism and explanation of the text, as well as were afterwards recognized for many centuries,
for the light he has thrown on separate doctrines. and which before Empedocles had been pointed
(Philosophorum Graecorum veterum reliquiae, vol. out one by one, partly as fundamental substances,
ü. , containing Empedoclis Agrigentini Carmin. Re- and partly as transition stages of things coming
liquiae, Amstelodami, 1838. )
into existence. (Aristot. Metaphys. i. 4, 7, de
Acquainted as Empedocles was with the theories Generut. et Corr. ii. 1; comp. Ch. A. Brandis,
of the Eleatics and the Pythagoreans, he did not Handbuch d. Gesch, der Griech. Röm. Philos. i.
adopt the fundamental principles either of the one p. 195, &c. ) The mythical names Zeus, Hern,
or the other schools, although he agreed with the Nestis, and Aïdoneus, alternate with the common
latter in his belief in the migration of souls (Fragm. terms of fire, air, water, and earth ; and it is of
vers. 1, &c. , 380, &c. , 350-53, 410, &c. ; comp. little importance for the accurate understanding of
Karsten, p. 509, &c. ), in the attempt to reduce his theory, whether the life-giving Hera was meant
the relations of mixture to numbers, and in a few to signify the air and Aïdoneus the earth, or
other points. (Karsten, p. 426, 33, 428, &c. , Aïdoneus the air and Hera the earth, although the
426; compare, howerer, Ed. Zeller, die Philosophie former is more probable than the latter. (Fragm.
der Griech. p. 169, &c. , Tübingen, 1844. ) With 55, &c. , 74, &c. ; comp. Brandis, l. c. p. 198. ) As,
the Eleatics he agreed in thinking that it was im- however, the elementary substances were simple,
possible to conceive anything arising out of nothing eternal, and unalterable (Karsten, p. 336, &c. ),
(Fragm. vers. 81, &c. , 119, &c. , 345, &c. ; comp. and as change or alteration was merely the con-
Parmenid. Fragin. , ed. Karsten, vers. 47, 50, 60, sequence of their mixture and separation, it was
&c. , 66, 68, 75), and it is not impossible that he also necessary to conceive them as motionless, and
may have borrowed from them also the distinction consequently to suppose the existence of moving
between knowledge obtained through the senses, powers- the necessary condition of mixture and
and knowledge obtained through reason. (Fragm. separation-as' distinct from the substances, and
49, &c. , 108; Parmenid. Fragm. 49, 108. ) Aris- equally original and eternal. But in this manner
totle with justice mentions him among the Ionic the dynamic explanations which the earlier physio
physiologists, and he places him in very close rela- logists, and especially Heracleitus, had given of
tion to the atomistic philosophers and to Anaxagoras. nature, was changed into a mechanical one. In
( Metaphys. i. 3, 4, 7, Phys. i. 4, de Generat. et order here again to avoid the supposition of an
Corr. i. 8, de Caclo, iïi. 7. ) All three, like the actnal coming into existence, Empedocles assumed
whole Ionic physiology, endeavoured to point out two opposite directions of the moving power, the
that which formed the basis of all changes, and to attractive and repulsive, the uniting and separat-
explain the latter by means of the former; but ing, that is, love and hate (Neixos, Añpıs, Kótos-
they could not, like Heracleitus, consider the | Φιλίη, Φιλότης, Αρμονίη, Στοργή), as equally
coming into existence and motion as the existence original and elementary (Fragm. 88, &c. , 138, dic. ,
of things, and rest and tranquillity as the non- 167, &c. ; Aristot. Metaphys. i. 4; Karsten, p.
existence, because they had derived from the 346, &c. ); whereas with Heracleitus they were
Eleatics the conviction that an existence could only different manifestations of one and the same
just as little pass over into a non-existence, as, rice fundamental power. But is it to be supposed that
versá, the latter into the former. In order, never- those two powers were from the beginning equally
theless, to establish the reality of changes, and active ? and is the state of mixture, i. e. the world
consequently the world and its phaenomena, aguinst and its phaenomena, an original one, or was it
the deductions of the Eleatics, they were obliged | preceded by a state in which the pure elementary


## p. 14 (#30) ##############################################

14
EMPEDOCLES.
EMPYLI'S.
substances and the two moving powers co-existed the same cause, his six original beings (Aristot. de
in a condition of repose and inertness ? Empe- Anim. iii. 3, Metaphys. i. 57; Fragm. 321, &c. ,
docles decided in favour of the latter supposition 315, &c. , 313, 310, &c. ), still he clearly distin-
(Fragm. vers. 88, &c. , 59, &c. ; comp. Plat. Soph. guished the latter as a higher state of development
p. 242; Aristot. de Cocl. i. 10, Phys. Auscult. i.
4, from the former ; he complains of the small extent
viii. 1), which agreed with ancient legends and of our knowledge obtainable through our body
traditions. This he probably did especially in or- | (Fragm. 32, &c. ), and advises us not to trust to
der to keep still more distinctly asunder existences our eyes or cars, or any other part of our body,
and things coming into existence; and he conceived but to see in thought of what kind each thing is
the original co-existence of the pure elementary by itself (Fragm. 49, &c. , comp. 108, 356, &c. );
substances and of the two powers in the form of a but he attributes the thinking cognition to the
sphere (opaipos ; comp. Karsten, p. 183, &c. ), deity alone. (Fragm. 32, &c. , 41, &c. , 354, 302,
which was to indicate its perfect independence and &c. ) We are, however, by no means justified in
self-sufficiency. As, however, these elementary supposing that Empedocles, like the Eleatics, con-
substances were to exist together in their purity, sidered that which is perceptible through the
without mixture and separation, it was necessary senses, i. e. the world and its phaenomena, to be a
to suppose that the uniting power of love predomi- mere phantom, and the unity of the divine sphere,
nated in the sphere (Aristot. Mctaphys. B. i. 4, that is, the world of love, which is arrived at only
1, 21, de Generat. c Corr. i. 1), and that the by thought, to be the sole existence. (11. Ritter
separating power of hate was in a state of limited in Woll's Anulect. I. p. 423, &c. , Gesch, der l'hilos.
activity, or, as Empedocles expresses it, guarded i. p. 5+1, &c. ; Brandis, in the Rheinisch. Museum,
the extreme ends of the sphere. (Fragm. vers. 58, iii. p. 124 ; comp. Zeller, l. c. p. 184, &c. )
comp. 107, &c. ) When the destructive hate rises Further investigations concerning Empedocles's
into activity, the bond which keeps the pure ele- derivation of the different kinds of sensuous per-
mentary substances together in the sphere is dis ception, and of the mutual influence of things upon
bolved (vers. 66, &c. ); they separate in order one another in general, from the coincidence of
partly to unite again by the power of love: and effluxes and corresponding pores, as well as the
this is the origin of our world of phaenomena. But examination of the fragments of his cosmologic and
that the elementary substances might not be com- physiologic doctrines, must be left to a history of
pletely absorbed by this world and lose their Greek philosophy.
[CH. A. B. )
purity, Empedocles assumed a periodical change of E’MPODUS ("Eurodos), an otherwise unknown
the sphere and formation of the world (Fragm. vers. writer, whose arournuoveúuata are mentioned by
88, &c. , 167, &c. ); but perhaps also, like the Athenaeus. (ix. p. 370. ) Casaubon proposed to
earlier Ionians, a perpetual continuance of pure read llogeidavios instead of "Eurodos; but our
fundamental substances, to which the parts of the ignorance about Empodus is not sufficient to justify
world, which are tired of change, return and pre- such a conjecture.
(L. S. )
pare the formation of the sphere for the next period EMPOʻRIUS, a Latin rhetorician, author of
of the world. (H. Ritter in Wolfs Analect. ii. three short tracts entitled I. De Ethopocia ac Loco
p. 415, &c. , Gesch. der Philos. i. p. 555, &c. ; but | Communi Liber ; 2. Demonstrativae Materiae prae-
comp. Zeller, l. c. p. 191, &c. ) The sphere being ceptum ; 3. De Deliberativa Specie. He is believed
the embodiment of pure existence was with him to have flourished not earlier than the sixth cen-
also the embodiment or representative of the deity, tury, chiefly from the circumstance that he refers
either conceiving the deity as a collectivity, or in his illustrations to the regal power rather than to
mainly as the uniting power of love. (Fragm. vers. the imperial dignity, which he would scarcely have
70; comp. Aristot. de Generat. et Corr. ii
. 6, Me done had he lived before the revival of the kingly
taphys. B. 4, de Anim. i. 5. ) But as existence is title.
not to be confined to the sphere, but must rather Emporius was first edited by Beatus Rhenanus,
be at the foundation of the whole visible world, so along with some other authors upon rhetoric, Basil.
the deity also must be active in it. But Empedocles 4to. 1521 ; the pieces named above will all be found
was little able to determine the how of this divine in the “ Antiqui Rhetores Latini" of F. Pithoeus,
activity in its distinction from and connexion with 4to. , Paris, 1599, p. 278.
(W. R. )
the activity of the moving powers : he, too, like EMPC'SA ("Eurovoa), a monstrous spectre,
the Eleatics (Xenophan. Fragm. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, ed. which was believed to derour human beings. It
Karsten), strove to purify and liberate the notion could assume different forms, and was sent out by
of the deity : “ not provided with limbs, He, a Hecate to frighten travellers. It was believed
holy, infinite spirit, passes through the world with usually to appear with one leg of brass and the
rapid thoughts,” is the sublime expression of Em- other of an ass. (Aristoph. Ran. 294, Eccles.
pedocles. (Fragm. vers. 359, &c. , comp. 317. ) | 1094. ) Whenever a traveller addressed the
Along with this, however, he speaks of the eternal monster with insulting words, it used to flee and
power of Necessity as an ancient decree of the gods, utter a shrill sound. (Philostr. Vit. Apoll. ii. 4. )
and it is not clear whether the necessary succession The Lamiae and Mormolyceia, who assumed the
of cause and effect, or an unconditional predestina- form of handsome women for the purpose of attract-
tion, is to be understood by it; or, lastly, whether ing young men, and then sucked their blood like
Empedocles did not rather leave the notion of vampyrs and ate their fiesh, were reckoned among
Necessity and its relation to the deity in that the Empusae. (Philostr. Vit. Apoll. iv. 25; Suid.
mysterious darkness in which we find it in the s. v. )
[L. S. )
works of most philosophers of antiquity.
E'MPYLUS, a rhetorician; the companion, as
We perceive the world of phaenomena or changes we are told by Plutarch, of Brutus, to whom he
through the medium of our senses, but not so its dedicated a short essay, not destitute of merit, on
eternal cause; and although Empedocles traced the death of Caesar. It is not stated to what
both sensuous perception and thought to one and country he belonged. “ Empylus the Rhodian”
7


## p. 15 (#31) ##############################################

PYLUS.
15
ENANTIOPHANES.
ENCELADUS.
original beings (Aristot
. de
i. 57; Fragm. 321, &a,
), still be clearly distin
igher state of development
plains of the small extent
nable through our lody
dvises us not to trust to
other part of our bods,
-hat kind each thing is
comp. 108, 356, &c. );
anking cognition to the
&c. , 41, &c. , 354, 302,
y no means justified in
like the Eleatics, con
sceptible through the
s phaenomena, to be a
of the divine sphere,
ich is arrived at only
vistencc. (H. Ritter
Sc. , Gesch, der Philos.
e Rheinisch. Museum,
p. 184, &c. )
eming Empedocles's
ds of sensuous per-
ence of things upon
the coincidence of
res, as well as the
his cosmologic and
eft to a history of
(CH. A. B. ]
Cherwise unknown
are mentioned by
zubon proposed to
ποδος; but our
fficient to justify
(L. S. ]
ician, author of
thopoeia ac Loco
Materiae prae
He is beliered
i the sixth cen-
that he refers
rather than to
I scarcely have
of the kingly
is mentioned in a passage of Quintilian, where the mation of the present text of the Basilica, appears
text is very doubtful, as an ortor referred to by from his being several times named in the text it-
Cicero, but no such name occurs in any extant self, as in iii. p. 258, where he cites Theophilus;
work of the latter. —(Plut. Brut. 2 ; Quintil. x. 6. ii
. p. 560, where he cites the Code of Justinian;
$ 4, and Spalding's note).
(W. R. ] i. 99, where he cites the Novells of Justinian.
E'NALUS ("Evalos). The Penthelides, the According to the Scholium on the Basilica (ii. p.
first settlers in Lesbos, had received an oracle from 548, ed. Heimbach), be seems to have written
Amphitrite commanding them to sacrifice a bull to notes upon the Digest. That he was alive after
Poseidon and a virgin to Amphitrite and the Nethe death of Justinian appears from Basil. iii. p.
reides, as soon as they should, on their journey to 230 (ed. lleimbach), where he cites a Novell of
Lesbos, come to the rock Mesogeion. The leaders of Justin. On the other hand, Assemanni thinks that
the colonists accordingly caused their daughters to lie wrote after the composition of the Basilica,
draw lots, the result of which was, that the daugh which, in the Scholium, Basil. i. p. 262, he appears
ter of Sminthcus or Phincus was to be sacrificed. to cite ; but it is very likely that here, as in many
When she was on the point of being thrown into other places, that which was originally a citation
the sea, her lover, Enalus, embraced her, and leaped from the Digest has been subsequently changed for
with her into the deep. But both were saved by convenience into a reference to the Basilica. In
dolphins.