1. THE PAPYRUS FRAGMENT

Let us begin with the analysis of P.Strasb. ens. d–f 10b–18, which presents the following text:

ἡ]μεῖς δὲ λόγων ἐπιβ[ησόμ]εθ᾿ αὖθις: the extant letters of line 10 signal that Empedocles intends to returnFootnote ⁵ to a topic he has previously treated.Footnote ⁶ The restoration of both ἡ]μεῖς and ἐπιβ[ησόμ]εθ(α) is fairly certain. However, ἐπιβ[ησόμ]εθ(α) is the variant reading restored following the first hand in the papyrus. Yet, in the line-spacing between d–f10 and d–f9, a second hand wrote down an N in correspondence to the Θ in EΠΙΒ[ΗΣΟΜ]ΕΘ, thereby suggesting the correction of a passive verbal form into the active ἐπιβήσομεν. However, scholars have already shown that the first hand's reading must be preferred, as it is elsewhere in the papyrus.Footnote ⁷ In line 11 the restoration of φ[λογ]μός by MP (see MP [n. 2], 147) is sound. φλογμός is very likely the subject of the participle ἀνάγων in line 12. In the same line, after the initial lacuna, we can read ]ΩΣ, which might represent the ending of an adverb.Footnote ⁸ The ]α̣ after the lacuna in line 13 is likely to constitute the ending of a neuter name in the plural, plausibly the noun to which the following adjective φυτάλμια refers. After the lacuna at line 14, the letters ]ΥΝΕΤΙ suggest the reconstruction of the sequence ν]ῦ̣ν ἔτι.Footnote ⁹ At line 15 ὅπποτ̣[ε indicates the beginning of a new sentence. Moreover, the restoration ἐσχάτιο̣[ν is sound, while the short remaining space in the lacuna and the ending ]HI after it suggest a form of the aorist of βαίνειν.Footnote ¹⁰ At the beginning of line 17, θεσπε[ suggests a form of the adjective θεσπέσιος, ‘divinely uttered’, hence ‘extraordinary’. Janko, following MP's suggestion,Footnote ¹¹ reconstructed θεσπε[σίηι in the dative case, syntactically connected to the substantive ἀϋτῆι at line 16.Footnote ¹² At the end of line 17 we can read λαχόντα, a form of the participle aorist of the verb λαγχάνειν, which could express the idea of a divine lot, ‘d'une part reçue dans le cadre de l'ordre cosmique’.Footnote ¹³ Before this, the letters ΩΝΑ are clearly visible, preceded by the remains of another letter, probably a M.Footnote ¹⁴ At line 18 after the lacuna, the first hand writes ]ΥΤΟ, while the second hand writes `ΤΕ´ in the interlinear space over ΤΟ.Footnote ¹⁵ As Janko has pointed out, the letters drawn by the first hand need to be the ending of a verb with πέρι after it in anastrophe. Janko suggests ‘the obvious supplement … εἴλ]υτο πέρι’.Footnote ¹⁶ At the end of the line, moreover, there is a reference to χθών, earth, in the nominative case.

2. WHOLE-NATURED BEINGS AND MARWAN RASHED'S RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PAPYRUS LINES

Despite their damaged state, the papyrus lines reported above suggest that Empedocles was returning to a topic he had previously treated; a topic dealing with a generative process whose main agent is fire or φλογμός. This raises a ‘woeful mixture’ (π[ο]λυπήμ[ον]α κρᾶσιν), from which things, or better beings, that are ‘fecund’ (φυτάλμια) are born (τεκνώθ̣[η]σ̣αν), whose remains (λείψανα) ‘Dawn still observes’ (ἔτι … δέρκεται Ἠ̣ώς: line 14). MP have already noted that the process of generation alluded to throughout these lines is analogous to the generative process bringing about whole-natured beings that Empedocles describes in DK 31 B 62,Footnote ¹⁷ whose text runs as follows:

The analogies between this fragment and the lines of the papyrus are striking.Footnote ¹⁸ First of all, the content is comparable. Both sets of verses deal with a process of generation: in the papyrus, of fecund beings; in B 62, of whole-natured beings. Second, the natural process by which whole-natured beings came to light is analogous to the process generating φυτάλμια beings. On the one hand, ‘outlines’ (or ‘models’, τύποι in B 62.4) of whole-natured beings sprang out of the earth thanks to subterranean fire rising up to reach its like. On the other hand, in the papyrus lines, the φ[λογ]μὸς ἀτειρής analogously raises fecund beings. In both sets of verses the fire's ‘rising up’ is described by a form of the verb (ἀν)ἄγω: in d–f 12 we have the participle ἀνάγων, whereas in B 62.2 we read the aorist ἀνήγαγε. Third, there is also a resemblance between the results of both processes, which are similarly defined through a pejorative nuance, as suffering beings. On the one hand, the ‘nocturnal saplings of … men and women’ are ‘pitiable’ (B 62.1–2), on the other, ‘the mixture’ is ‘woeful’ (ens. d–f 12).

Given the obvious analogies between the papyrus lines and B 62, which had already suggested to MP that π[ο]λυπήμ[ον]α κρᾶσιν and the φυτάλμια beings could be identical with οὐλοφυεῖς beings,Footnote ¹⁹ Rashed uses the better-preserved lines of B 62 to reconstruct the more damaged verses in the papyrus. His reconstruction runs as follows:

As we can see, in the lacuna of line 14, Rashed reconstructs the word οὐλομελῆ, which he takes as a ‘terme parfaitement synonyme’ for οὐλοφυεῖς.Footnote ²⁰ Consequently, he reconstructs in the lacuna of line 16 a passive form of the verb διατέμνω, ‘to be cut through’, and the pronoun ἕκαστα; both words are used by Plato in a famous passage of the Symposium,Footnote ²¹ in which the idea of spherical proto-humans later cut into two halves may be reminiscent of Empedocles’ formation of men and women from the separation of whole-natured beings.Footnote ²²

However, from a papyrological point of view, Rashed's crucial restoration—οὐλομελῆ, τῶν ν]ῦ̣ν—presents a problem of miscalculation of the size of the lacuna, as we can infer from his own words (Rashed [n. 3], 96):

Despite Rashed's concern to find a word that can perfectly fit the lacuna, my analysis of the photos of the papyrus reveals that Rashed's estimation of the length of the lacuna is erroneous and his restoration, consequently, too short. The sequence [οὐλομελῆ, τῶν ν] includes twelve letters of a standard size, but the space of the lacuna could include at least fourteen letters of a standard size. In fact, if we imagine drawing on the papyrus a vertical line upwards in correspondence of the E in ETI in line 14, we would intersect the Π̣ in Π̣ΕΣΕ[ΕΙ]Ν̣ in line 1 or the less dubious Σ in AΕΚΑZΟΜEΝ[Ο]ΙΣΙΝ in line 2. This means that E in ETI in line 14 corresponds, on the vertical axis, to Π̣ in Π̣ΕΣE[ΕΙ]Ν̣ in line 1 and to Σ in AΕΚΑZΟΜEΝ[Ο]ΙΣΙΝ in line 2. However, while Π̣ in Π̣ΕΣE[ΕΙ]Ν̣ and Σ in AΕΚΑZΟΜEΝ[Ο]ΙΣΙΝ correspond to the fifteenth letter in their respective verses,Footnote ²³ E in ETI cannot be counted as the fifteenth letter of line 14 (considering letters of a standard size), since we must take into account the so-called law of Maas. In fact, the scribe of the Strasbourg Papyrus, when copying verses, progressively shifted towards the left side of the column with an angle of circa 5.5 degrees.Footnote ²⁴ This angle ensures the adding of a further letter in the verse every six or seven copied verses, as can be inferred by observing the sequence of papyrus lines in the longer ensemble a. It follows that E in ETI must be taken as the seventeenth letter in line 14. This entails that no fewer than fourteen letters of a standard size originally occupied its initial lacuna. It is notable, though, that Janko worked out an analogous result: in his reconstruction, the initial lacuna in line 14 encompasses fifteen letters, and this is comparable to my conclusion considering the fact that his restoration, παντὶ τρόπωι, τῶν ν]ῦ̣ν, has the letter I twice, which can be measured as half a standard letter. In contrast, Rashed's restoration of the lacuna encompasses twelve letters and is definitely too short for the length of the lacuna.

This casts doubts on Rashed's subsequent restoration of line 16—δὴ τό[θ᾿ ἕκαστα διεθμήθη κλα]γ̣γῆι, etc.—whose rationale exclusively rests upon Plato's reminiscence of Empedocles’ whole-natured beings cut into men and women. In contrast to the restoration at line 14, the restoration of the lacuna in line 16 cannot be refuted on a papyrological basis. However, in the photo of fragment f, a light horizontal(ish) ink stroke can be observed on the right upper side of the letter O preceding the lacuna,Footnote ²⁵ which may not be compatible with the Θ supposed in Rashed's restoration (δὴ τό[θ), but rather with the left tract of a Τ, in ligature with the preceding O, as in τότε.

Regardless, I would argue that, once we reject the restoration οὐλομελῆ for papyrological reasons, there is no need to retain either Rashed's restoration of line 16, upon which it is strictly dependent, or the more general assumption that the papyrus lines deal with the birth of whole-natured beings. As I will show hereafter, the textual parallels we have observed between ens. d–f and B 62 do not justify the reconstruction that both sets of verses depict the generation of the same beings. Indeed, contextual elements discredit this reconstruction as improbable. First, Simplicius introduces the verses of DK 31 B 62, which he proceeds to quote, by reporting that Empedocles presented the birth of whole-natured beings in the second book of his physical poem, as a preliminary argument to his description of the articulation of male and female bodies.Footnote ²⁶ All papyrus fragments come, in contrast, from the first book of Empedocles’ On Nature. Footnote ²⁷ In theory, Empedocles may have already treated the generation of whole-natured beings in the first book of his On Nature, while Simplicius may have decided to quote another reference to the same theme in the second book.Footnote ²⁸ However, from the report of Simplicius, who could read Empedocles’ poem in its entirety, we gain the impression that, when introducing the birth of men and women from whole-natured beings and Empedocles’ B 62, he encountered this topic for the first time in the second book of On Nature.

Second, although the adverb αὖθις at d–f10 connects the generative process Empedocles is describing to an argument he has previously tackled, this argument must not necessarily coincide with the same exact topic Empedocles is about to discuss. The reference might be to a more general theme representing the context in which the particular generation Empedocles wants to describe comes to light. We could therefore look through the remaining papyrus fragments that precede ensemble d–f, above all through the long ensemble a–c, in order to glimpse the thematic context to which the lines under analysis could refer. The problem is that we do not know how much context was lost with the loss of papyrus material between ensemble d–f and ensemble a–c, and this allows a relatively wide spectrum of conjecture. For instance, MP suggested a loss equal to almost an entire book, while Primavesi, though agreeing that ens. d–f comes from the first book of On Nature as ens. a–c, nevertheless maintained that a relatively great number of columns with an accordingly huge amount of information originally occurred between the two major Strasbourg ensembles.Footnote ²⁹ In contrast, Janko convincingly reconstructs the Strasbourg papyrus according to a sort of ‘criterion of economy’. From his experience with the burned papyri from Herculaneum, Janko concluded that, in reconstructing fragmentary papyri, the best results can be achieved if one assumes the loss of the smallest possible number of columns among the extant papyrus fragments, unless there is concrete material evidence to the contrary.Footnote ³⁰ This leads us to assume, with Janko, that ens. d–f closely followed ens. a–c in the original layout of Empedocles’ poem and, consequently, that the thematic context to which ens. d–f10 refers is represented by the context depicted in ens. a–c.

Ens. a–c constitutes the sequel to the famous DK 31 B 17, which can be considered the very beginning of the physical account after the (long) prologue. As we can now see, this sequel opens by focussing on the formation of ‘all things that were, that are and that will be later’, namely ‘trees … men and women, wild beasts and birds, water-nourished fish and long-lived gods’ (see a[1]8–a[ii]2). Empedocles, in other words, promises a description of the world and, above all, of the development of its inhabitants from the beginning (‘things that were’) up to the present state of things (‘things that are’) and beyond (‘things that will be later’). This promise is followed by the description, in P.Strasb. ens. a(ii)3–a(ii)12, of a cosmic stage that appears to be characterized by wild movement and confusion.Footnote ³¹ We are told that the earth was untrodden and moved quickly: it ran and so did the sun. A few lines later, at a(ii)18–20, Empedocles starts depicting Love's initial unfolding among the elements from the depth of the cosmic whirl. This coincides with the (very) beginning of life in the world, as we apprehend from the comparable fragment B 35. In what follows, Empedocles twice promises Pausanias that he will show him how the interaction between Love and Strife brings everything to light.Footnote ³² Thus, in the sequel of B 17 Empedocles seems to deal with the account of the very early stage of the world, and most probably with the origin and first development of life in it. Despite the loss of papyrus material after ens. a–c and before ens. d–f, we might reasonably assume that Empedocles continues recounting what he promised in the lines before: the birth of everything owing to Love and Strife at the beginning of the world.Footnote ³³ Thus, the expression ἡ]μεῖς δὲ λόγων ἐπιβ[ησόμ]εθ᾿ αὖθις in ens. d–f10 picks up this particular description of the origin and development of life in the world.

3. THE BIRTH OF TREES AND MY RECONSTRUCTION OF ENS. D–F 10B–18

Given that the thematic context in which ens. d–f is to be placed is that of the very first moments of the world, and since ens. d–f focusses on the birth of fecund living beings, it is not unreasonable to assume that Empedocles, in the papyrus lines under analysis, tackled the generation of the first living beings, trees and plants, more generally. Notably, trees are the first living beings to be mentioned in the programmatic list of ens. a(1)9–a(ii)2, just before men and women.Footnote ³⁴ Even though the order of the list ought not strictly to reflect the order in which these topics were treated later in the poem, Empedocles maintained that trees are chronologically the first living beings to appear on earth, as Aetius reports:

According to Aetius, Empedocles argued that trees sprang from the earth at a very early stage of the world, indeed before cosmic masses were fully in place, as is suggested by the reference to the sun not rotating along its orbit and thereby causing the unusually unseparated nature of day and night. Aetius’ allusion to a young and therefore incomplete state of the world is comparable to the depiction of things we can read through ens. a(ii)3–20. As we have seen above, we are told that Love expands her influence among the elements when the cosmos was still characterized by wild movement and instability, with the untrodden earth moving quickly and the sun running in a non-standard fashion.Footnote ³⁶

Moreover, Aetius reports that, according to Empedocles, trees sprang out and grew up owing to heat, which comes from under the earth. Comparably, Aristotle stated that trees grow towards the sky because of fire, which by nature tends to go upwards.Footnote ³⁷ The process that makes trees come to be, therefore, is likely to be the same process that raises whole-natured beings: subterranean fire, when flying upwards to reach its celestial like, pushes up things that are under the earth and makes them come to light. In fact, the process by which subterranean fire raises things out of the earth does not involve only trees and whole-natured beings, but it is recurrent in Empedocles’ natural philosophy. During the initial stages of the cosmos, for instance, fire moved upwards and crystallized the sky, hardening ether that was first separated from the Sphairos.Footnote ³⁸ After the formation of the crystalline heaven, of the sun and of the other celestial bodies, fire, continuing to rise, moved up rocks, crags and cliffs.Footnote ³⁹ Finally, as we can see, even some living beings were generated in an analogous way. This leads us to conclude that fire plays a remarkable role in Empedocles’ system, both cosmologically and biologically. It collaborates in physical formations not only as a material principle, of which things are made, but also in an active way, drawing things upward out of the earth.Footnote ⁴⁰

The fact that fire could potentially raise anything out of the earth and make it come to light weakens the suggested identification of the living beings brought to light by the flame in ens. d–f 11–14 with the outlines of whole-natured beings formed by fire in B 62. In fact, if we compare the two sets of verses with Aetius’ more prosaic terminology (αὔξεσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐν τῆι γῆι θερμοῦ διαιρόμενα), we observe analogous parallels in the way in which trees are brought about. This indicates that the analogies among these different texts must be read in terms of fire's more general action in cosmological and zoogonic generation. In other words, the ‘indomitable flame’ of ens. d–f, as well as the separating fire of B 62 and the separating heat of Aetius’ report, refer to the same generative principle and process: fire's natural thrust towards the upper region of the universe, which raises many and diverse things out of the earth.

It is the context depicted in the Strasbourg Papyrus, therefore, which invites the reading that the very particular process depicted in ens. d–f involves the generation of plants and trees.Footnote ⁴¹ For, at a very young and unstable stage of the world, such as that described in ens. a, fire's action is more likely to have raised the very first living beings, plants and trees, rather than whole-natured beings that belong to a much later zoogonic stage.Footnote ⁴² In addition, it is also worth noting that trees present a remarkable συμμετρία τῆς κράσεως, according to Empedocles, which leads them to encompass the principle of the male and the female.Footnote ⁴³ In line with this, Aristotle informs us that, according to Empedocles, trees are able to generate a product that is already fecundated and in which there is the principle of nourishment.Footnote ⁴⁴ For this reason, they can be considered φυτάλμια in a special way.Footnote ⁴⁵ Finally, the fact that Dawn can see ‘what now remains’ of the very first trees might be a sign of their proverbial longevity.

With all of this considered, I propose the following reconstruction for the lines of the papyrus:

But we shall embark once again upon those

arguments: when the tireless flame happened to raise up

incessantly a woeful mixture of mortal beings,

then from the earth fecund living beings were born,

great trees, whose remains Dawn can now still observe.

When the bulk of the earth, once fastened together, went to the remote place,

then many forms of roots with tumult and extraordinary

clamour grew apart, whose lot is the recess of the earth,

and the tribes of flower-bearing meadows by which Earth was dressed all around.

In the first lacuna at line 11, I accept the restoration [κείνων· ὁππότ]ε proposed by MP. At line 12, [θνητῶν ἠνεκέ]ω̣ς is a very good solution by Rashed,Footnote ⁴⁶ which leaves no doubt that Empedocles is here concerned with the account of the origin of certain living beings (θνητά). My new interpretation is made explicit at line 14, where I restore the word δένδρεα at the beginning of the lacuna.Footnote ⁴⁷ δένδρεα is followed by the epithet μακρ(ά), which Empedocles employs with reference to trees in B 72, πῶς καὶ δένδρεα μακρὰ καὶ εἰνάλιοι καμασῆνες, and in B 79, οὕτω δ’ ὠιοτοκεῖ μακρὰ δένδρεα πρῶτον ἐλαίας.Footnote ⁴⁸ In the previous line, d–f 13, Empedocles might have rendered explicit where trees are from: the expression ἐκ δ᾿ ἅιης recurs in the same metric position in B 21.10, ἐκ δ’ αἴης προρέουσι θελεμνά τε καὶ στερεωπά.Footnote ⁴⁹ The word ζῶι]α̣ at the end of the lacuna is suggested by Aetius’ passage on the birth of trees: Ἐμπεδοκλὴς πρῶτα τὰ δένδρα τῶν ζώιων ἐκ γῆς … (see above). Regardless, ζῶι]α̣ was already reconstructed by MP and also retained by Janko and Rashed.Footnote ⁵⁰

The idea behind my reconstruction of lines 15–18 is that at line 15, by starting a new sentence, Empedocles depicts how trees ‘receive’ their roots. These are formed when earth, once fastened together and solidified, goes downwards with a movement that is antipodal to that of fire. In other words, while fire moving upwards forms trunks, branches and foliage,Footnote ⁵¹ roots grow (διέφυ)Footnote ⁵² because of earth going downwards. This reconstruction is suggested by our sources, especially Aristotle and Theophrastus (see DK 31 A 70), who report that, concerning the generation of plants, Empedocles assigned the growth of roots to the earth moving naturally downwards, whereas shoots are formed thanks to fire going upwards. Accordingly, τόπον ἐσχάτιο̣[ν at line 15, meaning the remote limit of the world, may indicate the deepest and innermost, rather than the outermost, place of the universe: the centre of the whirl. What ‘went to the innermost place’, furthermore, is not fireFootnote ⁵³ but earth, which can accordingly be restored in the lacuna of line 15.Footnote ⁵⁴ At the end of the verse, I wrote β]ῆ, thereby rejecting the variant readings of both the first and the second hand,Footnote ⁵⁵ as I accept Rashed's arguments in favour of his correction.Footnote ⁵⁶

At line 16 I retained MP's restoration κλα]γ̣γῆι,Footnote ⁵⁷ whereas in the preceding lacuna, through a periphrasis continuing in the lacuna of line 17, it is made explicit what is brought about by the descending force of ether: πόλλ’ εἴδη ῥιζῶν … διέφυ.Footnote ⁵⁸ The word κευθ]μ̣ῶνα at the end of the lacuna was already suggested by MP in a footnoteFootnote ⁵⁹ and retained by Janko,Footnote ⁶⁰ while both MP and Rashed reconstructed the word λει]μ̣ῶνα.Footnote ⁶¹ As Rashed already highlighted, both λειμῶνα and κευθμῶνα in the singular suggest an Empedoclean metaphor that depicts, in my reconstruction, the subterranean depth in which roots grow.Footnote ⁶² For the reconstruction of line 18, I am indebted to Rashed's suggestion of a parallel with Lucr. 5.785–7. Here Lucretius depicts the birth of lush and blooming fields.Footnote ⁶³ This leads to my proposal χόρ̣[των … ἀνθοφόρων φῦλ(α). The compound word ἀνθοφόρος is employed as an epithet of fields by Ar. Ran. 442: ἀνθοφόρον … ἄλσος. Empedocles uses the analogous compound ῥιζοφόρος: see P.Strasb. a(ii)28: ῥιζοφόρων γέ̣ννημα καὶ ἀμπελοβάμ[ονα βότρυν·]. At the end of the lacuna, the verb εἴλ]υτο follows the first hand and Janko's proposal.Footnote ⁶⁴ Lastly, the reference to tumult and clamour at line 16 might hint at the fact that, according to Empedocles, plants and trees have sensations like animals, and can, therefore, feel fear and pain.Footnote ⁶⁵ κλαγγή καὶ ἀϋτή, on the other hand, are Homeric terms that indicate the twang of the bow and the battle-shout. Tumult and clamour might be explained with reference to the cosmic battle between Love and Strife, which is the reason for the origin of life in the world in the first place. After all, any generation of living beings, hence also of trees, means multiplicity, and multiplicity, meaning Strife's power over Love, is always linked to pain and suffering.Footnote ⁶⁶