II. I shall not contend whether Empedocles, was a good or a bad
philosopher, or a good or a bad poet, although he professed both these
faculties; neither shall I dispute, whether he was so ostentatious, as
always to appear in public cloathed in purple, with a crown of gold upon
his head; or so vain, as to aspire at being honoured as a divinity,
but I shall confine myself, to examining whether he was so franticly
ambitious, as to throw himself privately into the flames of Mount Ætna,
to avoid his body being found, in order to make the world believe,
that he had been carried alive up to Heaven; to the end, that he might
afterwards be worshiped as a deity. This circumstance, is positively
asserted in many books; and Empedocles from thence, came to be quoted,
as an instance of the extravagance of the heathen philosophers; and upon
all occasions, when people in conversation discoursed upon morality, it
was introduced as an argument of the foolish ambition of mortals, which
they conclude is a frailty annexed to our nature, and that it corresponds
with the suggestion contained in the expression of the old serpent to
our first parents, _You shall be treated as if ye were gods_. This
information is taken from the writings of the most ancient Greek authors,
such as Hippobotus, Diodorus of Ephesus, &c. and from them it has been
diffused into the works of the Greeks and Latins. What we find in Horace
upon the subject is very trivial:
... _Deus immortalis haberi_
_Dum cupit Empedocles, ardentem frigidus Ætnam_
_Insiluit._
III. One of the elemental rules of Criticism, is, that when with respect
to any fact, we meet with different historical opinions, to abide by that
which is the least improbable; or where the circumstances of probability
are equal, to adopt that opinion which is supported by the best
authority. But I see this rule, which is clearly dictated by the light
of nature, frequently abandoned, and to such a degree, that some writers
seem as if they took pains to pursue a contrary method; which most likely
proceeds, from the improbable being nearly allied to the marvellous,
which, although it is not so well calculated to establish or persuade our
assent to a fact, gives lustre to the relation, and authors are generally
fonder of ostentation than of truth.
IV. There is an instance of this, in the subject we are treating of. It
is true, that Hippobotus, and Diodorus of Ephesus, give the account we
have mentioned of the death of Empedocles; but there are three other
writers, whom I look upon to be of equal authority, and who are more
ancient; to wit, Timeus, Neanthes of Cyzicus, and Demetrius Trezenius,
who all give other, and different accounts of the manner in which he
died, that are beyond comparison more probable than those given by the
first two. Why then should not these be believed before those other
two, the improbability of whose relations stares you full in the face?
Consider Empedocles on the margin of the volcano, with that ocean of fire
presenting itself to his sight, and a horrible death to his imagination.
Is it credible, that in such a situation, he, for an ideal felicity,
which could not be termed more than imaginary; I say, is it credible,
that a reasonable entity, who well knew that after his death he could
not be sensible of any enjoyment to be derived from a mistaken notion of
mankind, should, for such a chimera, precipitate himself into that abyss
of sulphur and flame? I will venture to pronounce that he could not.
V. But let us proceed. Admitting that any man could be absurd enough
to suppose such a thing probable, who was a witness of the fact? Why,
nobody; for this must be taken for granted; and they say, is to be
inferred from the circumstances of his disappearance, for that with the
most diligent search that could be made, they could never find his body:
others contradict this relation; and Timeus, so far from admitting that
he died in Sicily, or in the neighbourhood of Mount Ætna, says, that he
passed over to Peloponnesus, and died there. But allowing, that he died
in Sicily, and taking for granted, the circumstance of their being unable
to find his dead body, could not this have disappeared, without being
plunged into the gulph of Mount Ætna? Terenius says, that being grown
very old, as he was walking along a cliff on the sea coast, as it was
customary for him to do, his foot slipped, and he fell into the water,
and was drowned; and that his body was never found afterwards; which is a
much more probable account of its disappearance than the other.
VI. I may be told, this could not be so, because manifest tokens were
found of his having thrown himself into the abyss of Mount Ætna. The
principal of these tokens was, that a little while afterwards, one of
his shoes, by the emission of the flame, was thrown out of the volcano;
so Hippobotus tells us; but this is a glaringly fabulous tale; although
it should be affirmed by five hundred Hippobotuses. The flame of Ætna,
which the hardness of marble is unable to resist, had such a respect for
the shoe of Empedocles, as to leave it unsinged? But they say it was made
of metal, which is a subterfuge, that besides being ridiculous, is of no
avail in the case; for admitting that that philosopher, either to appear
particular and different from other men, or from some other vain motive,
should have been so extravagant as to wear metal shoes; would this have
indemnified them from being consumed by the voracious flame of the
volcano? By no means, for it is well known, that the powerful activity
of its heat, in an instant, dissolves the hardest of metals. In the
amazing and terrifying vomit of lava, which it emitted in the year 1665,
it cast up such a quantity of liquid metal, that it ran down in a river
of fire, till it nearly approached the city of Catania. And among other
experiments that were made to try the intense heat of that melted metal,
was contriving to introduce a sword blade into it, which as far as it was
immersed, instantly became liquid.
VII. A joke, which Father Dechales tells of a Spaniard, concerning Mount
Ætna, seems so applicable to this matter, that I think it will not be
amiss to relate it. He had considered, that volcanos had subsisted
a great many ages, and that there was no metal except gold, which
fire would not consume, and concluded from thence, that all the metal
which boiled in the Volcano must be gold. Filled with this conceit, he
persuaded himself that he had found out an easy method of acquiring
immense riches, which he proposed to do by the following invention. He
got a strong iron kettle made, to the handle of which, he fastened a
long iron chain, and by that, he let the kettle down till it reached
the metal, and hoped by dipping it in, to draw up a large quantity of
liquid gold. But what followed? Why, that the moment the kettle entered
the burning mass, both that, and a part of the chain were melted, and
the poor Spaniard was left with the other part of the chain in his hand,
which he was obliged to draw up with the loss of the lower end, and his
kettle. So powerful and active is the heat of that burning metal. Thus
it would have been better for Hippobotus, to have feigned the shoes of
Empedocles to have been made of Salamanders hairs, which it is said can
never be consumed by fire.