Dernière mise à jour : 04 / 07 / 2009.
(Ce site a été créé en Mai 2007.)
Le but de ce site est de faire connaître des informations et textes concernant Empédocle.
Autour de cette page ("/home") se déploient en réseau d'autres pages. Par exemple : "/bibliographie"
http://empedocles.acragas.googlepages.com/bibliographie
Pour une vue complète des pages :
http://empedocles.acragas.googlepages.com/intranet
Septembre 2007
Jean-Claude Picot
Liens :
- Le groupe yahoo "philosophie-antique" http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/philosophie-antique
permet aux antiquisants d'échanger et de se tenir au courant de rencontres ou de parutions d'ouvrages.
- www.presocratic.org : nouveau site sur les présocratiques.
- La newsletter de Nico Bader (http://www.stichting-pythagoras.nl/ et nico.bader@stichting-pythagoras.nl) : nouveaux titres dans les études pythagoriciennes et indirectement sur Empédocle.
- Site de l'Association de doctorants et de jeunes chercheurs en philosophie ancienne et en sciences de l'antiquité : http://www.zetesis.fr/
- Site "Opinions des anciens philosophes" de Gérard Journée : http://www.placita.org/
Chronique
(Sont signalés ici des articles ou ouvrages à paraître, mais aussi des textes parus récemment, qui seront inclus dans la bibliographie de référence de T. Vítek http://empedocles.acragas.googlepages.com/bibliographie ; l'information la plus récente apparaît en premier, la plus ancienne en dernier ; pour consulter les archives voir empedocles.acragas.googlepages.com/archives/) :
►
Γεωργακέλλος, Νίκος Ι, Εμπεδοκλής - υπό το πρίσμα των φυσικών επιστημών, Αθήνα, Ευρασία, 2008.
Megino Rodríguez, Carlos, "Empédocles y el orfismo", in Alberto Bernabé – Francesc Casadesús (coords.), Orfeo y la tradición órfica: un reencuentro, Madrid: Akal, 2008, vol. 2, p. 1105-1140.
(Nous remercions Constantin Macris qui a communiqué récemment ces deux titres à empedocles.acragas)
►
Le 20 juin 2009 s’est tenue à Paris une journée d’étude organisée par André Laks et consacrée à l’édition et à l’interprétation du Papyrus de Strasbourg fr. d et f. Les participants de cette journée étaient André Laks, Marwan Rashed, Glenn Most, Carlos Lévy, Richard Janko, Oliver Primavesi, Léopoldo Iribarren, Lucia Saudelli, Gérard Journée, S. Fazzo, Constantin Macris, Pénélope Skarsouli, Anne-Laure Therme, Maria Scermino, Jean-Claude Picot. Marwan Rashed a présenté un article à paraître, qui contiendra une reconstitution intégrale de la deuxième partie, très corrompue, du fr. d (lignes 10-18). Selon cette reconstitution, il faut voir dans ce texte une description de la scission des premiers types de vivants (les οὐλοφυῆ du fr. 62 et Aetius Α 72), donnant lieu à l'apparition des créatures sexuées.
►
Gemelli Marciano, M. Laura, Die Vorsokratiker, II, Parmenides, Zenon, Empedokles : griechisch-lateinisch-deutsch - Auswahl der Fragmente und Zeugnisse, Übersetzung. und Erläuterungen von M. L. G. M., Düsseldorf : Patmos, Artemis & Winkler, 2009, (Sammlung Tusculum).
►
Maria Michela Sassi, Gli inizi della filosofia: in Grecia, Torino : Bollati Boringhieri, 2009. (Empedocle e il suo dèmone : pp. 189-198, plus pp 216-218, 228-241, B 3, B 105, B 107, B 109, B 112, B 115, B 117, B 118, B 129, B 138, B 146).
►
L'article de Carlo Santaniello "Il demone in Empedocle" (ci-dessous) est paru en mai 2009.
►
Giovanni Casertano, i presocratici, roma: edizioni carocci, 2009, (pensatori. 4).
Chap. 6. Empedocle - Pluralisti contro monisti ? La vista e gli scritti. Le radici, il cosmo e il mondo. Sensazione, pensiero e conoscenza. Il dio, l'anima e la reincarnazione
►
A paraître en 2009 :
Carlo Santaniello, «Il demone in Empedocle», in G. Sfameni Gasparro, ed., Potere e religione nel mondo indo-mediterraneo tra ellenismo e tarda antichità, Incontro di studio della Società Italiana di Storia delle Religioni (Roma, 28-29 ottobre 2004), 33 pages.
Carlo Santaniello a adressé à "empedocles.acragas" un résumé de cet article, et nous l'en remercions :
Abstract - The nature of the daimon is discussed in the context of the much debated questions of the number of the poems composed by Empedocles, and of the relationship between the Physical Poem and the Purifications, and between physics and religion. On the basis of frgs. B115 and B30 D.-K. the daimon’s story should not be identified with the physical cycle on three grounds: a) if Empedocles had wanted us to imagine two cycles identifying themselves with each other, it would have been strange enough for him to offer such vague information about the time of the rupture of the sphairos as contained in the words «when the time was being completed» (B30), and such enigmatic reference to the length of the daimon’s story as «thirty thousand seasons» (B115): nobody would have been able to gather the alleged coincidence of the two terms; b) it is not really clear what relationship could be seen between the community of the blessed (who are many, after all) and the sphairos (who is one, after all); c) not only cannot the sphairos and the community of the blessed coincide with each other, but they really present only a partial analogy: in fact, the breaking of the sphairos is the effect of an agreement between Love and Strife and recurs regularly, whereas the fall of one or more daimones is just a possibility, and the community of the blessed never dies out. So Primavesi’s theory that the daimon’s story is just an allegory of the physical cycle cannot be accepted.
No fragment or witness connects the nature of the daimon with Love or with the elements. This thesis is corroborated by a careful analysis of all the fragments and witnesses dealing with theos or daimon. The significance of the spilling of the blood of one of the blessed by one of his fellows is to be understood by taking into due consideration the close god/man relationship: the killing of one god by another god (then downgraded to daimon) is a prefiguration of the crimes ascribed to man, murder and anthropofagy. The analysis of fr. B115 also allows for discussion of various aspects of metempsychosis, in connection with orphism, Pindar, and Plato.
The main thesis of the article is now introduced. It concerns the distinction between the soul (psyche, the principle of perception and intellection), which consists of the four elements (see, the witness of Aristotle and Theophrastus, besides Empedocles’ words) and is mainly identified with blood, and the daimon. The soul, as every compound made of the elements, is subject to disgregation at the death of the creature in which the daimon is incarnate. Since the daimon migrates from a body to another, he is obviously not made of elements, and is obviously not subject to death and disgregation. This argumentation is followed by criticism of the «materialistic theories», describing the daimon either as a particle of love (Cornford, Kahn, O’Brien) or as a compound of the four elements (Barnes, Wright).
According to Santaniello, who is nearer to positions such as Dodds’, Bollack’s, A. A. Long’s, the nature of the Empedoclean daimon is immaterial; he quotes parallels such as the Hesiodean daimones and the eidolon of which we learn in Pind. fr. 131b Snell-Maehler and also in Aeschylus.
Carlo Santaniello, « B115 D.-K. and fr. 110 Bollack: two fragments and analogy in Empedocles », probablement dans Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft.
Carlo Santaniello a adressé à "empedocles.acragas" un résumé de cet article, et nous l'en remercions :
Abstract - The discussion is set in the context of the main issues debated in the Empedoclean studies over the latest decades — above all, the question of the relationship between physics and religion. The extreme solution of the reductio ad unum of the two main poems proposed by scholars such C. Osborne, B. Inwood and others seems by now to obtain less and less support every day. But still uncertainty on the connection existing between the two aspects of Empedocles’ writings has in these last years led some (O. Primavesi, chiefly) to imagine that demonology should be simply understood as an allegory of physics.
The general object of this paper is to suggest that analogy instead of identity is the relationship existing between demonology and physics. First of all, a rather wide-ranging series of examples of the role of analogy in the two main poems is offered. Then reference is made to three instances of couples of loci, very similar to each other in the letter, which certainly contain or are likely to contain distinct Empedoclean fragments: Simpl. Phys. 1183.28 ff. (=B27.1.3-4 D.-K.) and Plu. de fac. lun. 926D ff. (B27.1-2); Porph. de abst. II 31 (=B139) and PStrasb d5-6 (~B139); Hipp. Haer. 7.29 (B29.1-2) and Ammon. de interpr. 249,1 Busse (B134.2-3).
The second, and specific, object of the article is to show that two lines preserved by Simpl. Phys. 1184.9-10 and commonly confused with the first two lines of Emp. B115 D.-K., owing to their partial identity with them, are really distinct from these latter. This has so far been upheld only by an Italian scholar, D. Scinà, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and by J. Bollack, who has published the two lines from Simplicius as fr. 110 of his edition of the Physical Poem; whereas it has been absolutely denied by all the other scholars who have even most recently dealt with the question. Full attention is dedicated in the paper to the history of this complicated and, by now, ancient philological question, and the solution proposed is founded on the analysis of texts from Aristotle and his great commentator.
Recognizing the two lines transmitted by Simplicius as an autonomous fragment, which differs in the first line from the text preserved by Plutarch and by Hippolytus, allows to gather some differences between Necessity as universal law (in fr. 110 Bollack), and Necessity as governing the destiny of the guilty daimones and the life of all creatures (at the beginning of fr. B115 D.-K.).
►
A paraître prochainement (Juillet 2009) :
David Wolfsdorf, "Empedocles and his Ancient Readers on Desire and Pleasure," Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 36, 2009, pp. 1-70.
D. Wolfsdorf a adressé à "empedocles.acragas" un résumé de cet article, et nous l'en remercions :
DK31A95, which derives from Aëtius' Placita, attributes to Empedocles a certain view about desire, pleasure, and pain. Conceived narrowly, the objective of the paper is to determine whether the attribution is accurate. Settling this question turns out to be a rather large task, which is divided into two sub-tasks. The first involves clarifying the doxographical tradition in which DK31A95 is embedded. This involves looking backward through Theophrastus to Aristotle and Plato as well as forward through Pseudo-Plutarch's Placita and Stobaeus' Anthology as far as Lūqā's 9th century Arabic translation of Pseudo-Plutarch's Placita and beyond this to Diels' editions of Doxographi Graeci and Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. The second sub-task involves interpreting Empedocles' fragments pertaining to desire, pleasure, and pain, and examining these in relation to the doxographica. The conjunction of both sub-tasks is, finally, framed by a consideration of how we should approach doxographical material, by emphasizing reconstruction of a lost archetype, the idiosyncrasies of authorial perspectives and agenda in a history of reception, or by pursuing both in a dialogical manner.
Il a adressé en outre un plan détaillé que l'on peut lire sur la page http://empedocles.acragas.googlepages.com/abstractssummaries
Tous nos remerciements à David Wolfsdorf pour ces deux contributions à "empedocles.acragas".
Rachana Kamtekar, “Knowing by likeness in Empedocles”, forthcoming in issue #3 of Phronesis 2009 . (B 109.)
R. Kamtekar a bien voulu nous communiquer un résumé de ce futur article, et nous l'en remercions.
Here is an abstract of the paper:
►
Denis O’Brien, « Annette Rosenfeld-Löffler: La poétique d’Empédocle. Cosmologie et métaphore. Thèse de doctorat présentée à la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Lausanne », Gnomon, Vol. 81(2), 2009, pp. 97-107. http://chbeck.metapress.com/content/?Author=Denis+O'Brien
►
Gordon Campbell, “And bright was the flame of their friendship" (Empedocles B130): humans, animals, justice, and friendship, in Lucretius and Empedocles”, Leeds International Classical Studies, 7.4, http://www.leeds.ac.uk/classics/lics/2008/200804.pdf, December 2008, pp. 1-23. (B 115, d MP, B 117, B 112, B 146, B 147, B 137, B 136, B 128, B 130.)
►
Marwan Rashed , "De qui la clepsydre est-elle le nom ? Une interprétation du fragment 100 d'Empédocle", Revue des études grecques, tome 121, 2008(2), pp. 443-468. (B 100.)
Marwan Rashed, "Le proème des Catharmes d’Empédocle. Reconstitution et commentaire", Elenchos, 29, fasc. 1, 2008, pp. 7-37. (B 112, B 114, B 115, B 113, B 119, B 121.)
►
Pénélope Skarsouli, "S'interroger sur la relation entre couleurs et mots. Le terme Phármakon chez Empédocle", in : L'Antiquité en couleurs : catégories, pratiques, représentations, M. Carastro (éd.), Grenoble : J. Millon, 2009, pp. 165-177. (B 23, B 21, B 96, B 3.)
___________________________________________________________________________________
Pour d'anciennes informations, voir Archives empedocles.acragas.googlepages.com/archives/
___________________________________________________
Articles de Jean-Claude Picot
-
« À propos du: The poem of Empedocles de B. Inwood », Revue de philosophie ancienne, XIII(1), 1995, pp. 81-104. (Fr. 117, 127, 129, 134, 143, 147.)
-
« Sur un emprunt d’Empédocle au Bouclier hésiodique », Revue des études grecques, 111(1), 1998, pp. 42-60. (A 93, Fr. 29.1, 99, 134.2, 143.)
-
« L’Empédocle magique de P. Kingsley », Revue de philosophie ancienne, XVIII(1), 2000, pp. 25-86 (Fr. 6, 19, 128.1-3, 148, 149.)
-
« Les cinq sources dont parle Empédocle », Revue des études grecques, 117(2), 2004, pp. 393- 446. Corrigenda in: Revue des études grecques, 118 (1), 2005, p. 322-325. (Fr. 143, 138, 62.3, 89, 110.2, 24, 35.1, 99, 4.2, 21.2, 71.) Article présenté avec les corrections sur la page web : empedocles.acragas.googlepages.com/cinqsources
-
« Aristote, Poétique 1457 b 13-14 : la métaphore d’espèce à espèce », Revue des études grecques, 119(2), 2006.
-
« Empedocles, fragment 115.3: Can one of the Blessed pollute his limbs with blood? », in : Reading ancient texts. Volume I: Presocratics and Plato - Essays in honour of Denis O'Brien, Suzanne Stern-Gillet and Kevin Corrigan (éd.), Leyde / Boston : Brill, 2007, (Brill's studies in intellectual history, 161), pp. 41-56.
-
Compte-rendu du livre de Carlos Megino Rodríguez, dont le titre est : Orfeo y el orfismo en la poesía de Empédocles. Voir http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-11-02.html. Voir aussi ce compte-rendu, sur la page web http://empedocles.acragas.googlepages.com/cmr_orfeo_y_el_orfismo et quelques ajouts non publiés dans BMCR.
-
« La brillance de Nestis (Empédocle, fr. 96) », Revue de philosophie ancienne, XXVI(1), 2008, pp. 75-100.
-
« Empédocle pouvait-il faire de la lune le séjour des Bienheureux ?», Organon, 37(40), 2008, pp. 9-38.
En prévision :
« Sagesse et Parole de Zeus, le fr. 123.3 d'Empédocle ».
« Zeus chez Empédocle ».
Contact : jecipic@gmail.com
