L'antiquit classique

Empedocles' sexual Theory. A Note on Fragment B 63

Herman De Ley

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

De Ley Herman. Empedocles' sexual Theory. A Note on Fragment B 63. In: L'antiquit classique, Tome 47, fasc. 1, 1978. pp.
153-162;

http://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-2817_1978_num_47_1_1889

Document gnr le 24/01/2017

 EMPEDOCLES' SEXUAL THEORY:
A NOTE ON FRAGMENT 63

As is well known Aristotle's Generation of Animals is one of our most

sources on the Presocratic sexual theories. It is especially valuable for
the information it supplies us with on Democritus' so-called preformationist
pangenesis, a theory which Aristotle undoubtedly considered to be the most
serious rival of his own views. It holds that the seed is drawn "from all the
body", in such a way that it contains all the bodily parts, drawn from the
corresponding parts of the parent1. Since both parents emit semen, though, this
implies that two complete sets of seminal parts are brought together in the
womb. But why is it not the rule, then, one could ask, rather than the exception
that women bear twins, and why does a woman need a man to get pregnant?
It is when making these critical remarks that Aristotle introduces the sexual
theory of Empedocles. Since the meaning of this passage is quite violated, in my
opinion, by some scholars, it is necessary to quote it in the original2 :
" ' ,
. ' , ,
[...]
, ' ' ,
,
$.
;
Are we to understand, as some scholars actually propose, that there existed a
historical link between the two theories, Empedocles having thought out already
some kind of "half pangenesis"? This question can only be answered with any
certainty after we have established as correctly as possible the purpose of the
short fragment. This I shall do in a critique of the interpretations brought
by other scholars.

1 See my paper Pangenesis versus Panspermia. Democritean Notes on Aristotle's

Generation of Animals, forthcoming in Hermes.
2 GA, I, 722b6-14 = DK 31B63. See C. Gallavotti, Empedocle, Poema Fis ico et
Lustrale, (Verona), 1975, pp. 52-53 and 235-236. In his Poetarum Philosophorum
Fragmenta, Berlin, 1901, p. 131, Diels suggested to complete the sentence with ' vi
' .
154 H. DE LEY

First of all, there is the quite extravagant position of Geurts, according to

whom "in this verse Empedocles is manifestly polemizing (\) . the
preceding lines, which are not literally reproduced by Aristotle, dealt with a pure
pangenesis which Empedocles wished to see replaced by a partial one" , the only
thinker against whom this polemic could have been directed, according to
Geurts, is Leucippus3. Of course it is rather preposterous to interpret Aristotle's
confrontation here chronologically (it is repeated in GA, Book IV, between
Empedocles and ... Democritus). Even more so is Geurts' assumption that "the
reason stated by Aristotle why this view was to be preferred ... probably has
guided Empedocles as well". For Aristotle does not write . "and that apparently
is the reason why Empedocles assumes...", but rather : "for that reason (viz.
because of the objection that there would arise two creatures) Empedocles
to present the most consistent application of this principle, for he
argues...". So there can be no question whatsoever of considering Aristotle's
to the fragment as a paraphrase of the verses preceding it in
poem.
Let us accept for a moment that the particle here has a polemical
In that case there is little or no chance at all that it would be directed
against a "pure pangenesis". Because what is stressed in the fragment, is clearly
the splitting of the over the two sexes. Its purpose, in other words,
is to proclaim that generation needs the contribution of male and female. But
this is the "ambospermatic" viewpoint which was also held by the real
pangenesis. Thus the "polemic" would have had to be directed instead against a
theory denying the double origin, i.e. an "arrenospermatic" one4. But in fact, is
there any serious reason at all to suppose that the fragment did have a polemical
purpose? I do not think so. The particle does not refer to a divergent

3 P. M. M. Geurts, De Erfelijkheid in de Oudere Griekse Wetenschap, Nijmegen-

Utrecht, 1941, pp. 38-39. For a criticism of Geurts' view on Leucippus see my paper
Pangenesis versus Panspermia.
* Such a theory was held, according to Aristotle, GA, 763b31 ft, by Anaxagoras .
, 8
. According to Geurts, o.e., p. 55, Anaxagoras' theory as well would
have been "a correction on Leucippus". But surely the peculiarity of the atomistic theory
did not consist in its ambospermatic character, which it shared with most of its
see H. Balss, Die Zeugungslehre und Embryologie in der Antike. Eine Ueber-
sicht, in Quellen u. Studien z. Geschichte der Naturwiss. u. der Medizin, Bd. V, H. 2/ 3
(1936), pp. 1-82, p. 36 : "Diese Ansicht wird vor Aristoteles allgemein angenommen".
For the history of the ancient theories of generation, see also the works of K. Blersch,
Wesen und Entstehung des Sexus im Denken der Antike (Tbinger Beitr. z. Altertums-
wiss., XXIX), Stuttgart-Berlin, 1937, and E. Lesky, Die Zeugungs und
der Antike und ihr Nachwirken, in Abh. Akademie d. Wiss. u. Lit. in Mainz, Geistes-
u. sozialwiss. Klasse, XIX, 1950.
 EMPEDOCLES' SEXUAL THEORY 155

sexual theory, but to a different, preceding stage in Empedocles' own cosmo-

zoogonical account5. For obviously this "being-torn-asunder" of man's birth6
and its subsequent (re) unification in sexual intercourse are to be explained by
the conflicting activities of Strife and Love, the basic powers in Empedocles'
cosmic cycle7. Actually, it is not difficult at all to reconstitute the original place
of the fragment in the zoogonical account such as it was transmitted to us.
When we take a look at the four zoogonical stages recorded by Aetius8, we are
told that, the third stage being that of the 9, in the fourth stage the
creatures do not any longer arise out of the elements of the earth10, (! ) St'
. man is no longer "born-as-a-whole" out of the earth, but his

5 Cf. J. Bollack, Empdocle, 3 vol., Paris, 1965-68 (cited: Bollack), I, p. 213,

n. 3 : "L'tude des sexes faisait donc partie de l'histoire des espces".
6 , cf. Aristotle's paraphrase, GA, 764b4 : . . . .
In DK 31B8 as well is used synonymously for . Bollack, III.2, p. 553 : "la
naissance des membres" ; Galla , o.e., p. 53 : "la generazione dlie membra". J.
Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, London, 1930, p. 215, followed by W. A. Heidel,
. A Study of the Conception of Nature among the Presocratics, in Proc.
Americ. Acad. Arts and Sciences, 45 (1910), p. 102, n. 88, translated with "substance",
while E. Bignone, Empedocle, Turin, 1916, p. 451 n., considered the whole expression,
, to be a paraphrase for .
7 Compare Hippol., Ref., VII, 29 (DK, I, p. 356.32) : ... ,
.
As the reader will know, in the middle of the sixties an "insurrection" has been raised
against the prevalent cyclic interpretation of Empedocles, with its notion of alternate
worlds formed by increasing Lve and increasing Strife. The most important
herein were supplied by F. Solmsen, Love and Strife in Empedocles'
Cosmology, in Phronesis, 10 (1965), pp. 109-148, and J. Bollack with his "magnum
opus", Empdocle, an impressive reconstruction but too often lacking the most
philological "srieux". Afterwards, however, the cyclic interpretation has been
restated in all its strength by D. O'Brien, Empedocles' Cosmic Cycle, Cambridge, 1969.
While I feel quite convinced by O'Brien's general argumentation, I cannot accept his
reconstruction of the zoogonical stages. Since the present paper is not the right place for
an elaborate discussion of this problem, the following interpretation has been kept
i.e. within the scheme transmitted by Aetius without interpreting the stages
in terms of increasing Love or Strife.
8 Aetius, V, 19, 5 = DK 31A72 ( = Bollack, n 482).
9 Bollack, II, p. 173, prints the (long forgotten) original reading of the
manuscripts, . His justification of it, III.2, p. 403, was uncomprehensible to
the present author. Apparently, is a "neologism" created by an ancient
reader in order to denote the fourth stage (cf. the sequence ---
' ).
10 , see Bollack, I, p. 197, and III.2, p. 403. DK 31B62.4 :
(for depending on , see O'Brien,
o.e., pp. 203-204).
11 Compare the zoogony in Diodorus, I, 7, 6=DK 68B5. 1 : . . .
, '
156 H. DE LEY

germ has been divided between the two sexes12, so that from now on man is
generated by the union of male and female, i.e. by man himself.
Nevertheless, this interpretation of 63 as constituting a fragment of the
fourth stage, obvious though it might seem to be, does not square with the
prevalent interpretation of that stage which lately has been defended again by
O'Brien13. According to this scholar the fourth stage (i.e. for him "the second
stage of increasing Strife") would consist of the separation of the bisexual or
asexual into man and woman14. In that case sexual procreation would
be a consequence of sex differentiation.
Against that view I hold the following objections :
1) 63, which is our only testimony for such a "splitting apart", does not
speak of a splitting of the members themselves, but of their origin , secondly,
there is no question of a splitting "into man and woman", but of putting one
part into the (body) of the male, the other in that of the female (cf. ),
which apparently presupposes the existence of the sexes15.
2) It is not sex differentiation that matters in Aetius' opposing the fourth
stage to the third, but the fact that the creatures do not any longer arise
out of the earth , they are generated instead by sexual intercourse.
Besides, if the fourth stage would really be defined by sex differentiation, the
persisting bisexuality of the plants would be an unexplainable anomaly16.
' . Cf. Solmsen, o.e., p. 133 : "For the fourth stage of
Aetius we have no fragment [?], but there is no reason to distrust his report that this
stage was characterized by sexual reproduction".
12 According to Bollack, 111.2, p. 552, it is true, in 63 would not
mean "divided in two parts", but rather "dispersed", sc. in the body. Rejecting the most
obvious interpretation, i.e. to take the clause as being explicative of the
verb, Bollack rather opposes the one to the other . "la double origine est explique dans
la suite ( ) ; sans doute a-t-il alors un autre sens". He supports
this interpretation by pointing to Aristotle's use of the verb when criticizing ... pan-
genesis. But in GA, Book IV, when repeating the confrontation between Empedocles and
pangenesis, Aristotle explicitly assigns the sens of to Empedocles' ,
see GA, 764b3-7 : (
' , )
xai ... (Bollack, p. 553, . 3:
"Aristote precise chaque fois, comme si le verbe n'tait pas explicite, que la semence est
partage entre l'homme et la femme"!).
13 O'Brien, o.e., pp. 203-210. Far from connecting B 63 with the fourth stage of
Aetius (cf. ibid., p. 196 : "1. separate limbs, fr. 57 ; 2. monsters, frr. 60 and 61 ; 3.
, fr. 62 ; 4. men and women") O'Brien does not even mention it here.
14 Ibid., p. 209 : "the conclusion is inevitable (...) that men and women arose from
the separation of the whole-natured creatures" ; but Simplicius (In Phys., p. 381.29-30),
whom O'Brien quotes, does not point to a splitting apart of the sexes, but to the
of the , see below.
15 Possibly, it is this incompatibility of 63 with his interpretation which made
O'Brien neglect it.
16 Aet., V, 26, 4 = DK 31A70 . xai
(se. ).
 empedocles' sexual theory 157

3) The are not bisexual, they are no membrorum globus horribilis11 .

When in 62 it is said that they got , the
"probable implication" is not that they are bisexed18 (surely, the notion of
could not have been omitted in that case by Empedocles),
but rather that their sex is not determined in function of their original
(compare with the embryo which is composed out of the semen of the
"warm" male and of the "cold" female, but the sex of which is determined by
the "temperature" of the uterus).
4) Neither are the sexless, but their sex has been determined by the
temperature of the part of the earth out of which they were born. For the first
males were born out of the earth in the East and the South, the females in the
North19. True, at the moment of their birth they do not yet show forth the lovely

17 So D. Holwerda, Commentatio de vocis quae est vi atque usu, Diss.

Groningen, 1955, pp. 68-70, for , interpreting the as the
androgynous creatures of Plato's Symp., 189e5-190a4 ; id. O'Brien, o.e., pp. 227-229.
But although the Empedoclean ring of this myth cannot be denied, it is dangerous to use
the Symposium for the reconstruction of Empedocles' zoogony (cf. the warning by Solm-
sen, o.e., p. 135 n. 76, and Bollack, I, p. 217 . "Platon, par l'emploi qu'il fait du mot
symbolon dans le mythe d'Aristophane, pourrait nous garer") :
a) the expression must be understood, not in opposition to the following
division, but rather in relation with the preceding stages, cf. Aetius, V, 19, 5 :
(. . .) ,
, (...),
. See Bollack, III.2, p. 430 : "le mot doit se comprendre par rapport aux
tapes antrieures de la zoogonie (...) s'oppose et
(Stades I et II)" ;
b) The hermaphrodites, being monstruosities, rather belong to the second stage,
DK 31B61 : ' \
.
c) In Plato the splitting of the is not directly linked with sex
and procreation either : 1) only a part of the is androgynous ;
there were three "sexes" : , and (Symp., 189d7-e5) ; 2) it is
only afterwards, out of pity, that Zeus makes sexual intercourse possible, putting the
sexual organs in front of them : ,
' (. . .)
(ci. 63 ! ),
. . . , 191b7-c4. Thus for a time the split creatures were born out of the earth,
and only later their birth was made v .
In conclusion, if there is any correspondence indeed between Plato and Empedocles,
the are rather to be equated with the monsters of the second stage (so already
Bury, Symposium, ad be), the earth-born "split men" with the of the third
stage.
18 O'Brien, o.e., p. 205 : "the probable implication of line 5 will be therefore that
the had no sex or were bisexed".
19 Aet., V, 7, 1 =DK 31A81 (Bollack, n 617). 31B67 : '
. . . (so Bollack, n 616), cf Bollack, I, p. 213 : "ils taient horn-
158 H. DE LEY

form of the limbs20, but that is because, contrary to babies leaving the womb
when fully articulated already, the left the earth when still being "very
rudimentary forms of existence"21, i.e. a sort of "giant embryos"22. Only after
their first "long day"23 on earth they became fully articulated24. At the same
time they became sexually differentiated . the creatures of the North showed
themselves to be female, those of the South to be male25. So the , at the
end of its development, is articulated and sexually differentiated26 : what arose
out of the earth in the third stage was not after all a special kind of bisexual or
sexless superbeings, but "simply" earthborn men and women27. Of course there
still was an important difference with the men and women of the fourth stage :
those of the third did not yet copulate and procreate with one another.

mes ou femmes ds l'origine". Compare 31B62 (Bollack, n 510) :

. This could apply to the birth of the males in the
South, were the fire in the earth would be attracted by the warmth of the climate.
20 DK 31B62.7 . .
21 Quoted disapprovingly by O'Brien, I.e. , Bollack, I, p. 196 . "des bauches de
terre, faites d'une seule pice".
22 So Bollack, I, p.. 212. This view might be supported by Aristotle, GA,
762b28 ff, where he argues that if ever there were earthborn men or quadrupeds,
, it is likely that they originated (either out of eggs or) in the form of grubs, the
grub () being the kind of embryo () which contains its own food. Such a
theory is apparently attributed to Democritus by Lactantius (DK 68 A 139 . verniculorum
modo) (unless, of course, the author is simply disparaging the views of Democritus). See
W. K. C. Guthrie, In the Beginning, London, 1957, p. 123.
23 Aet., V, 18, 1 = DK 31 A75 (Bollack, n 600) : '
, (
, .
24 Cf. Bollack, I, p. 212 : "Comme la diffrenciation visible de l'embryon, entier
ds sa conception, commence au trente- sixime jour et s'achve au quarante-neuvime,
les embryons gants que sont les typoi s'articulent dj lentement sous terre. Ils
la surface, munis de leurs membres futurs encore inachevs. Ils n'acquerront
la perfection des corps qu' la fin d'une longue journe au terme d'une priode
sur terre, quivalent aux sept derniers mois de la gestation actuelle, qui rpte la
journe cosmogonique" .
25 Bollack, I, p. 213 n. 2 : "la distinction apparente des sexes se fait en mme
temps que la diffrenciation des membres".
26 Fragment 62 describes only the first moment of the stage of the , viz.
the moment , as Simplicius,
In Phys., p. 381.29-30, puts it. Contrary to O'Brien, p. 209, Simplicius does not refer
to the "splitting apart" of the into the men and women of the fourth stage, but
to the articulation of what, initially, contains only ... , o.e.,
. 382.7 (see also Bollack, I.e.). See also n. 30.
27 Cf. DK 31A72 (Bollack, n 488) . Empedocles natos homines ex terra ait ut
blitum. This stage was later adopted by Democritus to explain the first origin of man, see
DK 68A139.
 empedocles' sexual theory 159

The idea that creatures fully equipped with sexual organs did not have sexual
intercourse with one another, may seem to be far-fetched28, but apparently in
the eyes of Empedocles (and of other Presocratics as well, Democritus ex-
cepted)29 male and female are not characterized in the first place by their sexual
organs, i.e. by their sexual function, but rather by the physical "quality" of their
nature, the one being "warm" the other "cold".
Returning to our fragment, 63, we may conclude that it alludes to the
apart of the seed, not of the sexes : while in the third stage the seed arose
out of the earth, in the fourth it is split i.e. divided between male and female and
has to be reunited first in the womb of the female. This interpretation is
by Aristotle's saying that the was a sort of seed30. It enables us
to reconstruct on behalf of Empedocles a far more consistent explanation of the
sexual instinct as well as of its temporarily disappearance after sexual
: the unity which has been lost being that of the two "half- seeds" and not
of the two sexes, this unity is restored with the coalescence of male and female
semen in the womb31, the sexual apathy that follows disappearing again when
fresh semen seeks to reunite32.

28 But compare Plato, Symp., 1 9 1 cl : the sexually differentiated do not

procreate , ' . Also compare the presocratic account of the origin
of life, transmitted by Diodorus (I, 7, 5 = DK 68B5), according to which "the earth, as it
hardened further under the sun's fire and the winds, lost the power of producing the
larger animals" : , '
. Anaxagoras (DK 59 Al) and
(DK 60A4) as well made sexual procreation supervene , "later on".
29 See my paper Pangenesis versus Panspermia.
30 Arist., Phys., 199b9 : xai . Compare Sim-
plicius, o.e., p. 382.16-21 (not quoted in full by O'Brien, I.e.) :
, '
.
(se. )
.
31 Cf. Arist., GA, 764 b5- 6 : (se because of the ) xai
, and Galenus, De semine, II, 3, p. 616K :

. See DK 31B64 : ' '
(differently reconstructed by Bollack, n 622), and Aet., V, 19, 5 :
, "probably
derived from the fragment", O'Brien, o.e., p. 233. For ' , compare Arist., GA,
747al 3-14 :
.
32 In the interpretation that what is restored in sexual intercourse, is the bisexual
unity of the , one is faced with the inconcistency that the result of the
coalescence of the male semen with the female one, viz. the child, is not bisexual, but
either male or female (it does not explain the sexual indifference, either).
160 H. DE LEY

The purpose of the fragment having been ascertained we have yet to decide if
Empedocles' theory of semen was really a kind of preformationist pangenesis
avant la lettre33. I do not think so.
1) First of all, since Geurts' fancy interpretation of Aristotle's introduction
was repeated and even extended by Bollack, it must be stressed that GA, 722b6-
17, is a criticism by Aristotle of (Democritus') pangenesis, not a paraphrase of
an exposition by Empedocles34.
2) According to Aristotle the great advantage of Empedocles' theory over
pangensis would be that it assumes that in male and female there is only a -
, a tally, ' ' ' , . . . 35. As for the second
against pangenesis, viz. that a woman would not need a man for
Aristotle concludes that either the semen is not derived from all the
body, (se. ) ,, '
36.
Obviously if a particular seed represents only the half (which?) of man, that
of the male being complementary to that of the female, it does not make much
sense to call such a view pangenetic. This also applies if one accepts either one
of the purely speculative interpretations proposed by Michael of Ephesus
under the name of Philoponus), viz. either that "in the male the semen
comes only from the more important parts (head, heart, liver, etc.), in the female
only from the unimportant ones (hands, feet, etc.)"37 , or, as he writes elsewhere

33 So Balss, o.e., p. 62 ; Geurts, o.e., pp. 38-43 ; and Bollack, I, pp. 216-225,
and III. 2, p. 552. But see Lesky, o.e., p. 32 : "Dass nun diese prformistischen
ber deren Einzelheiten sich nichts mehr ausmachen lsst, schon bei Em-
pedokles mit pangenetischen verbunden waren, bleibt auch nach den eingehenden
Geurts' 38 f. eine Vermutung".
34 Bollack, I, p. 217 and n. 1, understands the sentence ' . . .
(722b6-8) as referring to Empedocles! In his vol. II, while 63 is quoted under
n 641, he prints 722b6- 17, separately under n 640 (translating xai . . . .
, with "ainsi Empdocle, si l'on doit adopter la thorie, semble y avoir
ce qu'il dit") ; in III. 2, p. 404, he uses in 722bl5 :
, to credit Empedocles with pangenesis! In view of such blunders O'Brien's
general judgment on Bollack, o.e., p. 161 : "the language seems to the present writer in
many places imprecise", rather looks like an understatement.
35 Nevertheless, Bollack, I, p. 220 n. 1, refers to the two seeds as "chacun des
".
36 GA, 722bl5-16 (Bollack, II, p. 244, translates . "ou bien, comme il le dit, ce ne
sont pas les mmes...", making a quotation of it from Empedocles; cf. his comment,
HI. 3, p. 252 : "A ce compte, la double semence, au moment o elle s'unit, est plus
complte que chacun des parents. Aprs la fusion, dans la chaleur utrine, l'tre
'sphrique' se scinde nouveau en se dterminant"). Notwithstanding this unambiguous
statement of Aristotle, Bollack, I, p. 219, writes : "Deux ttes, deux troncs, quatre bras
se rencontrent...".
37 Michael [Philopon.], In GA, pp. 27.8- 10H ( = Bollack, n 652), accepted, ap-
 empedocles' sexual theory 161

(having forgotten apparently his earlier explanation), that "for each of the parts
there comes a half from the male and a half from the female"38.
3) Aristotle himself nowhere ranges Empedocles under
. On the contrary, the sole purpose of his confrontations is
to use Empedocles' theory against pangenesis39. Actually, the implications of
this fourth objection are : a) pangenesis, in order to escape from the fatal
of the , ought to adopt Empedocles' doctrine of a split seed40 ;
b) but even this could not save it. For the separate seminal parts, which if not
united would perish just like the separate limbs of Empedocles' first stage, would
have to grow together in much the same way as Empedocles made the separate
limbs grow together into the monsters of the second stage. This is impossible.
Nevertheless, that is what the pangenesists' theory amounts to41.
4) A preformationist pangenesis, finally, would not suit the zoogonical
For the generation of creatures through the oi preformed limbs

parently, by Geurts, o.e., pp. 41-42, who refers to "similar" theories held by Greek and
Indian physicians. But 1) in those theories there is no question of the pangenetic origin
of the seed (cf. Hippon ap. Aet., V, 5, 3 : the male procures the hard parts, like the
bones, the female the soft, i.e. the flesh) ; 2) one does not see how the splitting apart of
the former could have happened along the logical division into "important" and
"unimportant".
38 Id., p. 166.27-31 H. : rfj
(. . . ) (. . . )
, , and p. 167. 16 : ... '
, ', (sa ). Accepted by . Cherniss,
Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy, Baltimore, 1935, p. 274 n. 219. Geurts,
I.e., rejects it since, because of Michael's earlier interpretation, this one 'seems to be a
mere supposition" (but surely the reverse reasoning applies as well : Michael simply did
not know anything about it!). Bollack, I, p. 221 n. 3, apparently manages to accept
both explanations at once. See the severe judgment on Michael by C. W. Mller,
Gleiches zum Gleichem, Wiesbaden, 1965, p. 42 . 51 : "Er hat allem Anschein nach
bei seiner Kommentierung keine lteren, doxographisch ergiebigeren Kommentare von
GA benutzt ; denn seine Angaben ber Vorsokratiker beschrnken sich auf eine
Paraphrase des aristotelischen Textes, eigene Spekulation oder Benutzung anderer
des Aristoteles".
39 Empedocles is mentioned yet one more time, viz. with the sixth objection, GA,
723a23 ff., but only to confirm Aristotle's remark that frequently men and women from
become , i.e. once again against pangenesis.
40 Cf. GA, 722bl4-16 : '
.
41 GA, 722b24-26 :
, yf , .
Of course, here refers to the pangenesists, not to Empedocles (contra Bollack, I,
p. 219 n. 2). O'Brien, o.e., p. 219 : "Aristotle does argue from what happens in the
womb now, GA, 722b24-26. But the impression Aristotle gives is that he has made the
equation for himself.
162 H. DE LEY

belongs to Empedocles' second stage42. The , on the contrary,

arise before the articulation of their limbs : although their sex is already
qualitatively, they do not yet show forth the lovely form of the limbs, nor
the voice nor the organ proper to men*3. But if the is unarticulated
originally, still more so is the germ of the oL that in the fourth stage is
split even before sexual determination happened. Actually, as Aristotle testifies
in GA, Book IV, the sex of the foetus according to Empedocles does not depend
on the presence of preformed sexual organs but on the temperature of the womb
(GA, 764al ff.).
Thus, instead of being preformationist, Empedocles' theory of semen rather
tends toward a kind of epignesis44. Aristotle, it is true, unmistakably represents
and criticizes it as being preformationist45, but this is probably due to his
misunderstanding it46, as well as to his endeavour in GA to couple Democritus
as much as possible with Empedocles47.

Kasteellaan 12 Herman De Ley.

B-9840 Landegem.

42 Fragments 59, 60 and 61 ; Aet., V, 19, 5 : ...

. . . Cf. Arist., GA, 722bl9-21 : '
, f (31 57). ' -
.
43 DK 3162.10-11 (translation Kirk-Raven, p. 338). Cf. Simpl., In Phys.,
p. 382.16-17, quoted in n. 30 supra.
44 Cf. H. A. T. Reiche, Empedocles' Mixture, Eudoxan Astronomy and Aristotle's
Connate Pneuma, Amsterdam, 1960, p. 66 . "Empedocles' position is neither clearly
preformationist nor epigenetic (...). Little wonder, therefore, that neither Aristotle nor
[Philoponus] succeeded in reducing Empedocles' view of biological heredity to one or
other of their own neat alternatives".
45 Esp. in GA, 764b4 : . . .
46 Cf. Reiche, o.e., p. 65 . "Aristotle contaminates the wholenatured forms (...) with
the fortuitous concourse of the disiecta membra".
47 Cf. GA, 747a25 ff., 764al ff., 764blO ff., 769al7. In the Meteorolgica, on the
contrary, Democritus is associated with Anaxagoras. For such groupings of two thinkers
(cf. Bollack, I, p. 17 n. 9 : "suivant l'habitude qu'avait dj impose la doxographie
platonicienne"), cf. Cherniss, o.e., p. 357 . "Here too, when the purpose is understood,
it is impossible to criticize Aristotle for misrepresentations or lack of the historical sense,
but it is likewise impossible to use his groupings and representations of the affinity and
relationship of various doctrines as historical evidence".