Perception and sensation

Incense and perfumes

μύροισί (myroisi); σμύρνης (smyrnēs); λιβάνου (libanou)

The catalogue of offerings names perfumes, myrrh, and frankincense.

From the book

Empedocles’ Complete Fragments, Volume I

Empedocles of Acragas · Diotimos Editions · 2026

Browse this book’s lexicon →

Orientation

At a Glance

  • The wordThe catalogue of offerings names perfumes, myrrh, and frankincense.
  • In EmpedoclesIn B1282 such materials are offered to Cypris alongside pious images and honey libations.
  • In this edition“Unmixed” qualifies myrrh in line 6; a related adjective qualifies bulls’ blood in line 8.
  • A place to readPerfumes, myrrh, and frankincense are among the offerings made to Cypris.

Meaning

The catalogue of offerings names perfumes, myrrh, and frankincense. The perfumes are elaborately or subtly scented; myrrh is unmixed; frankincense is fragrant. These precise sensory qualities belong to the text's positive presentation of worship.

Use in the book

In B1282 such materials are offered to Cypris alongside pious images and honey libations. The lines call the fragrant offerings sacrifices, proving that this vocabulary can describe something other than an animal's death. Their rich smell and careful preparation make the alternative worship substantial and attractive rather than merely a deprivation.

The contrast with bulls' slaughter-blood is explicit in the next lines. Yet the fragment does not describe a recipe, the quantities used, the handling of each substance, or whether all the named materials were burned. Frankincense naturally evokes incense, but the surviving wording should not be expanded into a full ritual reconstruction. It is enough to observe that the poem can replace destructive offerings with objects and substances that please through form and scent.

Places to read

  1. B 128.4–82Perfumes, myrrh, and frankincense are among the offerings made to Cypris.

Translation in this edition

“Unmixed” qualifies myrrh in line 6; a related adjective qualifies bulls’ blood in line 8. Repetition does not imply that dilution would make animal killing permissible.