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)

L'auteur analyse d'abord la relation entre Theos et Daimôn dans le Poème Physique et dans les Purifications. Dans le premier, Empédocle appelle theoi le Sphairos et les éléments. Précisément, le philosophe d'Acragas appelle le Sphairos tout simplement theos. Pourtant, il appelle les éléments theoi dolichaiônes, alors qu'ils forment quatre masses séparées et avant qu'ils ne se mêlent pour constituer les « choses mortelles »; tandis que, lorsqu'ils se mêlent et abandonnent la condition de pureté pour créer un composé, il les (...) appelle daimones. D'autre part, dans les Purifications, les daimones sont les dieux tombés dans le monde : redevenir un dieu, c'est la destinée de l'homme, ou au moins l'objectif qu'Empédocle propose. Enfin, l'auteur soutient que les frgs. B131-134 pourraient provenir de l'Hymne à Apollon perdu. C'est ce que semble démontrer le fait qu'Empédocle suive dans ces fragments une ligne dogmatique à propos de la connaissance des dieux qui contraste avec la prudente gnoséologie suivie dans le Poème Physique et par la difference entre la théologie exposée dans ces fragments et le mythe eschatologique présenté dans les Purifications. The author starts by analyzing the relationship between Theos and Daimôn in the Physical Poem and in the Purifications. In the former poem it is the Sphairos and the elements which are called theoi. As a matter of fact, the Sphairos is called simply theos. The elements, instead, are called theoi dolichaiônes, when they are set in four separate masses and anyway before mingling up together in order to beget "mortal things"; whereas, when they mingle up, and pass from a pure condition into a compound, they are called daimones. On the other hand, in the Purifications it is the fallen gods who are called daimones: to become a god again is man's destiny, or at least the aim proposed by Empedocles. Lastly, the author maintains that frgs. B131-134 might belong to the lost Hymn to Apollo — this is shown by the dogmatic approach to the knowledge of the gods, which is here taken by Empedocles, contrary to the cautious gnoseology defended in the Physical Poem; and by the theology taught in those fragments, which is very different from the eschatological myth introduced in the Purifications. (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)

Ovidians continue to be puzzled by the 404-line speech put into the mouth of Pythagoras in book 15 of theMetamorphoses.Questions of literary decorum and quality are insistently raised: how does the philosopher's popular science consort with the predominantly mythological matter of the preceding fourteen books? Do Pythagoras' revelations provide some kind of unifying ground, a ‘key’, for the endless variety of the poem? Can one take the Speech as a serious essay in philosophical didactic, or is it all a mighty (...) spoof, as intentionally laughable, perhaps, as the imperial panegyric with which the narrative of book 15 concludes? Or should we beware of imposing modern tastes on Ovid's original audience, and respect the Hellenistic and Roman predilection for scientific poetry? This article seeks to establish further contexts for the evaluation of the Speech of Pythagoras through a study of Ovid's allusive practice within the Greco-Roman tradition of hexameterepos.The figure who provides a foundation for Ovid's construction of his own poetic genealogy turns out to be the Greek philosophical poet Empedocles. The resulting reflections on Ovid's manipulation of generic conventions may be timely in the light of the recent appearance of sophisticated and fresh approaches to the question of whether theMetamorphosesis, or is not, an epic. (shrink)

Ovidians continue to be puzzled by the 404-line speech put into the mouth of Pythagoras in book 15 of the Metamorphoses. Questions of literary decorum and quality are insistently raised: how does the philosopher's popular science consort with the predominantly mythological matter of the preceding fourteen books? Do Pythagoras' revelations provide some kind of unifying ground, a ‘key’, for the endless variety of the poem? Can one take the Speech as a serious essay in philosophical didactic, or is it all (...) a mighty spoof, as intentionally laughable, perhaps, as the imperial panegyric with which the narrative of book 15 concludes? Or should we beware of imposing modern tastes on Ovid's original audience, and respect the Hellenistic and Roman predilection for scientific poetry? This article seeks to establish further contexts for the evaluation of the Speech of Pythagoras through a study of Ovid's allusive practice within the Greco-Roman tradition of hexameter epos. The figure who provides a foundation for Ovid's construction of his own poetic genealogy turns out to be the Greek philosophical poet Empedocles. The resulting reflections on Ovid's manipulation of generic conventions may be timely in the light of the recent appearance of sophisticated and fresh approaches to the question of whether the Metamorphoses is, or is not, an epic. (shrink)