Equivocal and Deceitful Didactic Poetry. What Style matters can say about Empedocles' audience
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_34_10Keywords:
Empedocles, ambiguity, vividness, obscureness, oracle styleAbstract
Since antiquity, Empedocles has been considered as an example of both successful and unsuccessful communication. Aristotle credits him with vividness of images, but blames him for failure of clarity, and eventually compares his obscureness to that of oracles. Therefore, scholars in the past came to the conclusion that Empedocles deliberately employs an opaque style, like Heraclitus and his "studied ambiguity", as means for initiation. This paper challenges this assumption and asks whether and how ambiguity can work within a didactic poem. By showing how Empedocles' and Heraclitus' communicative strategies differ from one another, I shall point to the poet's role as a charismatic and spiritual guide, displaying at times a Sibyl-like attitude. Being a mediator between two separate dimensions puts Empedocles in an ambiguous position, because he delivers what the Muse and the gods made available for him to share, and so his opaqueness does not come directly from him. Ultimately, this style analysis also says something about who the ideal audience must have been.
Downloads
References
ANDOLFI, I. (2022). A Grammar of Self-Referential Statements: Claims for Authority from Hesiod to the Presocratics. In: IRIBARREN, L.; KONING, H. (ed.). Hesiod and the Beginnings of Greek Philosophy Leiden: Boston, p. 117-136.
ATHERTON, C. (1993). The Stoics on Ambiguity Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BOLLACK, J. (1968). Les Origines (commentaire). Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
BREMEN, D. (1980). Aristoteles, Empedokles und die Erkenntnisleistung der Metapher. Poetica, v. 12, p. 350-376.
BURKERT, W. (1992). The Orientalizing Revolution. Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.
BURKERT, W. (2005). Signs, Commands, and Knowledge: Ancient Divination between Enigma and Epiphany. In: JOHNSTON, S. Iles; STRUCK, P. T. (ed.). Mantikê. Studies in Ancient Divination Leiden: Brill, p. 29-50.
CASEVITZ, M. (1992). Mantis: le vrai sens. Revue des Études Grecques, v. 105, p. 1-18.
DELCOURT, M. (1955). L’oracle de Delphes Paris: Payot.
DILLERY, J. (2005). Chresmologues and Manteis: Independent Diviners and the Problem of Authority. In: JOHNSTON, S. Iles; STRUCK, P. T. (ed.). Mantikê. Studies in Ancient Divination Leiden: Brill , p. 167-232.
FARAONE, C. (2019). Empedocles the Sorcerer and his Hexametrical Pharmaka Antichthon: Cambridge University Press.
FARRELL, J. (2022). Are Lucretius’ Images Clear? In: STRAUSS, Clay J.; VERGADOS, A. (ed.). Teaching through Images. Imagery in Greco-Roman Didactic Poetry Leiden/Boston: Brill, p. 137-171.
FONTENROSE, J. E. (1978). The Delphic Oracle, its responses and operations, with a catalogue of responses Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
GALLAVOTTI, C. (1975). Empedocle. Poema fisico e lustrale Milano: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla/Arnoldo Mondadori Editore.
GEMELLI MARCIANO, L. (1990). Le metamorfosi della tradizione. Mutamenti di significato e neologismi nel Peri Physeos di Empedocle Bari: Levante Editori.
GHEERBRANT, X. (2017). Empédocle, una poétique philosophique Paris: Classiques Garnier.
GIULIANI, A. (2000). Erodoto, Tucidide e gli indovinelli degli indovini. Considerazioni sull’ambiguità del linguaggio oracolare. Aevum, v. 74, n. 1, p. 5-20.
GOLITSIS, P. (2021). Aristotle on Ambiguity. In: VÖHLER, M.; FUHRER, T.; FRANGOULIDIS, S. (ed.). Strategies of Ambiguity in Ancient Literature Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, p. 11-28.
KAHN, C.H. (1979). The art and thought of Heraclitus. An edition of the fragments with translation and commentary Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
KINDT, J. (2016). Revisiting Delphi. Religion and Storytelling in Ancient Greece Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
KINGSLEY, P. (1995). Ancient philosophy, mystery, and magic. Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KIRBY, J.T. (1997). Aristotle on metaphor. The American Journal of Philology, v. 118, n. 4, p. 517-544.
KIRK, G. S.; RAVEN, J. E.; SCHOFIELD, M. (1983). The Presocratic Philosophers. A Critical History with a Selection of Texts Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
HERSHBELL, J.P. (1968). Empedocles’ Oral Style. The Classical Journal, v. 63, p. 351-357.
HÖLSCHER, U. (2015). Paradox, simile, and gnomic utterance in heraclitus. In: MOURELATOS, A. (ed.). The Pre-Socratics. A Collection of Critical Essays Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 229-238.
INNES, D. (2003). Metaphor, Simile, and Allegory as Ornaments of Style. In: BOYS-STONES, G. R. (ed.). Metaphor, Allegory, and the Classical Tradition: Ancient Thought and Modern Revisions Oxford: Oxford University Press, 7-27.
LAKS, A. (1994). Substitution et connaissance: une interprétation unitaire (ou presque) de la théorie aristotélicienne de la métaphore. In: FURLEY, D.; NEHAMAS, A. (ed.). Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Philosophical Essays Princeton: Princeton University Press , p. 283-305.
LAPINI, W. (2013). Testi frammentari e critica del testo: problemi di filologia filosofica greca Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
LLOYD, G. E. R. (1987). The Revolutions of Wisdom: Studies in the Claims and Practice of Ancient Greek Science Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.
LLOYD, G. E. R. (1996). Aristotelian Explorations Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
NÜNLIST, R. (2005). Poetological imagery in empedocles. In: PIERRIS, A. (ed.). The Empedoclean Kosmos: Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity: Proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense July 6th-13th, 2003 Patras, p. 73-92.
O’BRIEN, D. (1970). The Effect of a Simile: Empedocles’ Theories of Seeing and Breathing. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, v. 90, p. 140-179.
OBBINK, D. (1993). The addressees of Empedocles. In: SCHIESARO, A.; MITSIS, P., STRAUSS, Clay J. (ed.). Mega Nepios. Il destinatario nell’epos didascalico, MD, v. 31, p. 51-98.
PUCCI, P. (1996). Enigma Segreto Oracolo Pisa/Roma: Ist. Editoriali e Poligrafici.
RAPP C. (2002). Aristoteles. Rhetorik. Erster Halbband Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
SFAMENI GASPARRO, G. (1999). Oracoli Profeti Sibille Roma: LAS.
SUÁREZ DE LA TORRE, E. (2005). Forme e funzioni del fenomeno profetico e divinatorio dalla Grecia classica al periodo tardo-antico. In: SFAMENI GASPARRO, G. (ed.). Modi di comunicazione tra il divino e l’umano Cosenza: Edizioni L. Giordano, p. 29-106.
TOR, S. (2016). Heraclitus on Apollo’s and his own: contemplating oracles and philosophical inquiry. In: EIDINOW, E.; KINDT, J., OSBORNE, R. (ed.). Theologies of ancient Greek Religion Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 89-116.
VAN DER BEN, N. (1975). The Proem of Empedocles’ Peri Physios Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner.
VATRI, A. (2017). Orality and Performance in Classical Attic Prose. A Linguistic Approach Oxford: Oxford University Press .
VÖHLER, M. (2021). Modern and Ancient Concepts of Ambiguity. In: VÖHLER, M.; FUHRER T.; FRANGOULIDIS, S. (ed.). Strategies of Ambiguity in Ancient Literature Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, p. 3-10.
WILLI, A. (2008). Sikelismos: Sprache, Literatur und Gesellschaft im griechischen Sizilien (8.-5. Jh. v. Chr.) Basel: Schwabe Verlagsgruppe AG Schwabe Verlag.
WRIGHT, M.R. (1981). Empedocles. The Extant Fragments London/Indianapolis/Cambridge: Yale University Press.
ZATTA, C. (2018). Aristotle on “the sweat of the earth” (DK 31 B 55). Philosophia, v. 48, p. 55-70.
ZUNTZ, G. (1971). Persephone. Three Essays on Religion and Thought in Magna Graecia Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ilaria Andolfi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Given the public access policy of the journal, the use of the published texts is free, with the obligation of recognizing the original authorship and the first publication in this journal. The authors of the published contributions are entirely and exclusively responsible for their contents.
1. The authors authorize the publication of the article in this journal.
2. The authors guarantee that the contribution is original, and take full responsibility for its content in case of impugnation by third parties.
3. The authors guarantee that the contribution is not under evaluation in another journal.
4. The authors keep the copyright and convey to the journal the right of first publication, the work being licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. The authors are allowed and stimulated to publicize and distribute their work on-line after the publication in the journal.
6. The authors of the approved works authorize the journal to distribute their content, after publication, for reproduction in content indexes, virtual libraries and similars.
7. The editors reserve the right to make adjustments to the text and to adequate the article to the editorial rules of the journal.
