From the book
Empedocles’ The Testimonia, Volume II
Empedocles of Acragas · Diotimos Editions · 2026
Browse this book’s lexicon →Orientation
At a Glance
- The wordDidyma and tridyma are twins and triplets; gemini is the Latin word for twins.
- In this workAëtius attributes twins and triplets to excess and splitting of seed.
- In this edition“Excess and splitting” must not become a claim about identical versus fraternal twins.
- A place to readExplains twins and triplets through excess and splitting of seed.
Meaning
Didyma and tridyma are twins and triplets; gemini is the Latin word for twins. Perischismos describes splitting or division of the seed. The terms concern plurality of offspring, but do not distinguish modern categories of twin development.
Use in the book
Aëtius attributes twins and triplets to excess and splitting of seed. Censorinus offers a longer discussion beginning with Hippon's claim that more seed than enough for one offspring is divided into two. He says Empedocles seems to have thought almost the same, but immediately qualifies the comparison: Empedocles gives no cause for division, only says that it occurs. The subsequent scheme derives two male offspring from equally hot locations, two females from equally cold ones, and different sexes from unequal temperatures. The hedging and the difference over whether a cause was stated should not disappear when the notices are compared. In addition, Diels doubts that the Censorinus passage can derive from Empedocles himself. Aëtius supplies a straightforward attribution; Censorinus supplies a tentative comparison whose detailed extension is less secure.
Places to read
- A 81 (testimony)23Aëtius, notice on multiple births. Explains twins and triplets through excess and splitting of seed.
- A 81 (testimony)23Censorinus, On the Birthday, final notice. Compares Empedocles with Hippon, qualifies the account of division, and adds temperature-dependent sexes.
- A 81 (apparatus)23Diels, apparatus. Doubts the Empedoclean derivation of the twins passage.
Translation in this edition
“Excess and splitting” must not become a claim about identical versus fraternal twins. The source neither names that distinction nor supplies the requisite modern embryological mechanism.