The author deals with the lost works of Empedocles, an often neglected subject, in the frame of the discussion concerning the number of the poems and their main features. He reviews the traces of the Passage of Xerxes, of the Medical Discourse, and of the Proem to Apollo among the fragments and witnesses, taking his cue from textual aspects and dealing with the contents, the significance of each of these writings in Empedocles’ culture and thought and their multifarious relationships with (...) his times. As to the Passage, he tries to reconcile the contrasting interpretations so far proposed (historical or religious poem). Concerning B111, the only relic from the Medical Discourse, he explains why its contents are incompatible with the Physical Poem and the Purifications. He analyzes the Proem to Apollo in several perspectives (text, witnesses, contents also from the epistemological point of view, literary genre). He assigns fragments 131–134 and 142 to the Proem, drawing one of his arguments from the comparison with the third Homeric Hymn to Apollo, and also suggesting a relationship with an intellectual cult of the sun. Formal features help to ascribe each fragment to the relevant poem. Close similarities between fragments do not necessarily mean that they come from the same writing: Empedocles is wont to allude to one poem of his while composing another. The author concludes that the striving for a reductio ad unum of the Acragantine’s output, also evident in the attempt by a number of scholars to make only one poem out of the Περὶ φύσεως and the Καθαρμοί, has often led researchers to take for granted that none of the fragments preserved might belong to the lost works. (shrink)

For the Greeks, O King, who make logical demonstrations, use words emptied of power, and this very activity is what constitutes their philosophy, a mere noise of words. But we [Egyptians] do not use words [logoi] but sounds [phōnai] which are full of effects.If I could tell you what it meant, there would be no point in dancing it.The Eleatic thinker Zeno was a friend, perhaps adopted son, and student of Parmenides. He is famous for his many paradoxes on space (...) and motion, such as Achilles and the tortoise. He was more than just an intellectual, however, having many pursuits including politics, which led to his gruesome death. Running arms to the Liparans, who were resisting the growing power of the Athenians, he .. (shrink)

L'objet de cet article est d'examiner l'ensemble des entités qui sont appelées divines dans le poème philosophique d'Empédocle. Il s'agit de se demander si ces entités aboutissent à une vision consistante de la divinité. On examine aussi la dialectique de la mortalité et de l'immortalité présente dans la pensée d'Empédocle. Dans la mesure où la moindre chose, y compris les vivants les plus instables, sont issus des principes divins, il y a un sens à dire que, dans le cosmos d'Empédocle, (...) toutes les choses composées sont considérées comme étant divines. Mais en un autre sens, seules les structures hautement intégrées méritent d'être considérées en tant que dieux. On montre que souffrir comme un mortel revient à vivre une vie fragmentée continuellement menacée par le spectre de la mort. Au contraire, mener une vie de dieu revient à vivre au sens plein, sans être tourmenté par le terme éventuel d'une existence heureuse. En conclusion, on établit que deux orientations distinctes de la poésie grecque et de la philosophie semblent avoir rivalisé dans l'interprétation qu'Empédocle se faisait des dieux. The paper examines all the entities that are said to be divine in Empedocles' philosophical poetry, and raises the question of whether or not they form a rather consistent view of what it is for something to be a god. The paper also examines the dialectics of mortality and immortality in Empedocles' thought. Since everything whatsoever, including the most unstable living beings, stemmed from divine principles there is a sense in which all composite things were regarded as divine in Empedocles' cosmos. But there is another sense in which only highly integrated structures were considered to be gods. To suffer as a mortal, it is argued, was to live a fragmented life continuously threatened by the prospect of death. Contrariwise, to lead a divine life was to live in wholeness, not at all worried by the eventual termination of such a blessed existence. In conclusion it is argued that two distinct trends of early Greek poetry and philosophy seem to have vied for supremacy in Empedocles' understanding of godhead. (shrink)

L’article prend en considération la façon dont différents auteurs rassemblés sous l’étiquette générale de « présocratiques » commençaient leurs discours. Dans le contexte d’une transmission essentiellement orale tel que celui de la culture de la Grèce archaïque, l’incipit prend une importance fondamentale, dans la mesure où il pose les bases de la communication, définit le type de message que l’auteur veut transmettre et indique dans quelle voie il s’engage. Il donne donc des indications non seulement sur le type de texte, (...) mais aussi sur le genre de public auquel ce texte était adressé. S’il s’agit d’un public restreint et choisi, l’incipit est généralement élitiste, obscur, et fait référence à un code auquel il est difficile d’accéder ou, comme dans le cas de l’écrit d’Alcméon, mise sur la difficulté d’une entreprise que les disciples doivent surmonter à l’aide de l’enseignement du maître. Si le texte est destiné à un public plus large d’amateurs cultivés, il mise sur des phrases ronflantes qui suscitent des visions grandioses et des émotions et placent l’orateur dans une position dominante vis-à-vis de l’auditoire. Ici on prend en considération en particulier les incipit de quatre auteurs assez différents les uns des autres, de la fin du vie au dernier tiers du ve siècle av. J.‑C. : Héraclite, Alcméon, Anaxagore et Diogène d’Apollonie. En recourant à l’analyse linguistique et en les confrontant avec d’autres textes de même époque, on cherche à définir la particularité de chaque texte en relation avec le message qu’il véhicule et avec ses destinataires. Les résultats de cette analyse invitent à reconsidérer la méthode à employer pour aborder les fragments des auteurs dits présocratiques et à se libérer du modèle herméneutique « anthologique » d’Aristote qui vise à rechercher un « système » philosophique et néglige le rythme prosodique, l’harmonie de la langue, le caractère persuasif des textes et leur contexte culturel. (shrink)

Le fragment 129 d'Empédocle fait état du savoir prodigieux et du pouvoir des prapides d'un Super-Sage du passé en qui les sources citatrices et les interprètes modernes reconnaissent trop facilement Pythagore de Samos. Le but de la présente étude est de reprendre à nouveaux frais l'examen de ces six vers afin d'ouvrir le débat autour de la sagesse et des pouvoirs attribués à la figure anonyme du Super-Sage. Interprétant « Empédocle à partir d'Empédocle », mais aussi à l'aide des références (...) culturelles majeures de son temps, on essaie d'examiner quel type de sagesse était attribué à cette figure par le poète philosophe, de quelles conditions, physiologiques ou autres, relève l'acquisition de cette dernière et en quoi consiste son caractère exceptionnel. Empedocle's fragment 129 praises the exceptional knowledge and the power of the prapides of a Super-Sage of the past. In this sage both ancient testimonies and modern interpreters all too easily recognize Pythagoras of Samos. The aim of the present paper is to re-examine these six verses in order to open up the discussion on the wisdom and powers attributed to this unnamed figure. Interpreting « Empedocles by Empedocles », and also taking into account the major cultural references of his time, we try to define what kind of wisdom was attributed to this distinguished sage, under which conditions, physiological or otherwise, he was able to acquire it, and what constitutes the exceptional character of his knowledge. (shrink)

The reconstruction of ensemble d–f of the Akhmîm Papyrus, better known as the Strasbourg Papyrus, which attests approximately eighteen of the over seventy new lines of Empedocles’ physical poem, has drawn the attention of scholars over recent years. Thanks to the good condition of the papyrus and the coincidence with two Empedoclean lines, already known from the indirect tradition, ensemble d–f 1–10a presents a well-restored text and an intelligible sense. In contrast, because of the damaged state of the papyrus, the (...) restoration of d–f 10b–18 is more complicated. These lines seem to describe a life-generative process, but what process was Empedocles talking about? Some resemblances between these papyrus lines and the lines of another Empedoclean fragment, DK 31 B 62, have suggested to scholars, notably to A. Martin and O. Primavesi in 1999 and M. Rashed in 2011, that the lines of the papyrus depict, just like DK 31 B 62, the generation of whole-natured beings. Other scholars, however, such as R. Janko in 2004 and A. Laks and G.W. Most in 2016, show more caution and leave the possibility open that Empedocles is here talking about the generation of something else. (shrink)

This paper focuses on the materialistic account of the blending and the way it shapes an original organism model. I aim to shed light on the threads of connections we can gather between the Presocratic and the Stoic views on the physical krasis of the body. The Stoics share with Parmenides and Empedocles the idea of a single material cosmic continuum in which thought and perception depend on the various blendings of the physical constituents of the body. Both of these (...) naturalistic traditions are committed to the view that substance is continuous and undergoes constant and qualitative change. My point is to underline how this view of a sympathetic cosmos presupposes a model of the individuality that is radically open. Thus, by taking off the notion of the krasis, the Stoics take off a problem – namely, that of the organism – that is first fleshed out by the Presocratics – Parmenides and Empedocles in particular – philosophers. In this respect, the Stoic view of relational identity indebts to the Presocratic account, beyond and against the Aristotelian one. (shrink)