Empedocles - Empedocle - Empédocle - Empedokles - Empedoklés - Empédocles - Эмпедокл Empedoklész

エンペドクレス -  Емпедокле  -  Empedoklo  -  Empedioklis  - אמפדוקלס  - إمبيدوكليس

(Home Page)

Dernière mise à jour : 11/ 07/ 2016.

 Le but de ce site est de contribuer à faire connaître des informations, des textes, des colloques concernant Empédocle. Et ainsi de promouvoir les études empédocléeennes.


Autour de cette page ("/home") se déploient en réseau d'autres pages. Voir "sitemap" :

Par exemple : "/bibliography-a-z"


Septembre 2007

Jean-Claude Picot


Membre associé du Centre Léon Robin (Recherches sur la pensée antique - UMR 8061)





(Sont signalés ici  des colloques, séminaires, projets, informations, des articles ou ouvrages à paraître, des textes récents qui seront inclus dans la bibliographie de référence de T. Vítek  http://sites.google.com/site/empedoclesacragas/bibliography-a-z ; l'information la plus récente apparaît en premier, la plus ancienne en dernier ; pour consulter les archives voir http://sites.google.com/site/empedoclesacragas/archives) :

Un séminaire, annoncé par Johan Siebers (Middlesex University London), concernant "Empedocles and Lao-Tzu as vanishing mediators" :

On notera que Johan Siebers est l'éditeur de la revue : Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication


Lors de la conférence internationale :

“Teaching Through Images: Imagery in Greek and Roman Didactic Poetry” 
Heidelberg, July 1-3, 2016 (Conveners: Jenny Strauss Clay [Virginia], Athanassios Vergados [Heidelberg])

Ilaria Andolfi (Sapienza - Università di Roma) est intervenue sur le sujet suivant :
Designing a Cosmic Architecture: Craftmanship in Empedocles’ 



Nous attendons un important article d'O. Primavesi dont le titre sera : 

Tetraktys und Göttereid bei Empedokles: Der pythagoreische Zeitplan des kosmischen Zyklus

Cet article, de plus de 80 pages, sera publié prochainement dans l'ouvrage:

Friedrich Kittler, Joulia Strauss, Peter Weibel, zusammen mit Peter Berz und Gerhard Scharbert (Hg.), Götter und Schriften rund ums Mittelmeer, Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink, 2016.



Dans la prochaine livraison de Rhizomata, Primavesi publiera une version abrégée (un peu plus de vingt pages) de l'article ci-dessus. Le titre sera : Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle and the Pythagorean Tetractys.


INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR PRESOCRATIC STUDIES (IAPS) Daniel W. Graham, Brigham Young University, President FIFTH BIENNIAL CONFERENCE Monday 13 June – Friday 17 June, 2016

Empedocles on June 16 and June 17

Thursday, June 16 

XAVIER GHEERBRANT , Université Lille 3 – UMR Savoirs, Textes, Langage
To build the argument of his cosmology, Empedocles took advantage of ways of poetic composition that he had inherited from epic poetry. As in the Hesiodic poems, the meaning is entrusted not only to the contents that are explicitly expressed within the poem itself, but also to the way these contents are organized and shaped. The discussion will focus on the adaptation by Empedocles of two modes of organization of the poetic material in the first book of the physical poem: Ritournell-Komposition, i.e., the use of refrains or repetitions of lines or expressions; and episodic composition.
I will argue that the asymmetry introduced between different instances of repeated verses sheds light on the relationship between the “episodes” that form the argument. The study will focus on two examples: (1) the smaller-scale example of three expressions, εἰς ἕνα κόσμον (26.5), εἰς ἓν ἅπαντα (17.7, 20.2), and (διέφυ) πλέον' ἐξ ἑνὸς εἶναι (17.2, 17.17); (2) the larger-‐scale example of the repetitions in fragment 26, and the role of this fragment in the argumentation of book I.
JOSHUA I. GULLEY, Purdue University
Empedoclean mixture is the mutual manifestation of powers. By ‘powers’ I mean beings that manifest themselves differently in different conditions. In saying that they are beings, I mean that they are not merely the properties of other beings, but they are real in their own right. For Empedocles, Earth, Water, Air, Fire, Love, and Strife are all powers, and stuffs are manifestations of the powers interacting in different combinations.
My defense of this interpretation will assume that Empedocles holds that the six fundamental beings do not change in their natures, a thesis he adopts from his reading of Parmenides. Given that assumption, any interpretation according to which the roots change in their natures in mixture cannot be sustained. (Thus I will not offer any extended response to views such as those in Palmer 2009 here.) My main target, therefore, will be interpretations that treat Empedoclean mixture as the aggregation of discrete bits of stuff. In response to the aggregation view, I undertake two main tasks. First, I offer a couple of positive reasons to think that mixture is the mutual manifestation of non-stuffy powers rather than the aggregation of bits of stuff: Empedocles’ theory has more explanatory power for its economy if mixture is the mutual manifestation of powers, and the homogeneous unity of the Sphere is best explained by powers. Second, I address some of the evidence that has been marshalled for aggregation interpretations. I conclude that the power ontology I attribute to Empedocles provides him with the best theory of mixture overall.
TAKASHI OKI, University of Oxford
In this paper, I examine Empedocles’ view as presented by Aristotle in Physics B 8. With the exception of Irwin (1990), many scholars (Ross 1923; Cherniss 1935; Waterlow 1982) think that Empedocles as described in Physics B 8 explains why animals that have parts suitable for survival account for the vast majority, and that Aristotle’s criticism of his explanation misses the mark. In my view, however, it is more reasonable to interpret Empedocles’ argument in such a way that Aristotle’s remark that teeth and all other natural things which come about always or for the most part in a given way cannot be ascribed to chance (198b34-36) works as a criticism of it. Even though it is not improbable that Aristotle presents Empedocles’ position imprecisely, I believe it is less probable that Aristotle misguidedly criticizes Empedocles’ view as Aristotle himself describes in Physics B 8. Further, if Empedocles is cited in favour of the rival view against which Aristotle argues in the chapter, Empedocles’ view must be interpreted in conformity with the argument at 198b16-31. I argue that a scrutiny of the text shows that true-totype reproduction is not presupposed in Empedocles’ argument. On the basis of a detailed examination of Aristotle’s teleological explanation and his criticism of the anti-teleological argument, I seek to clarify how Aristotle refers to Empedocles’ idea in Physics B 8.

Friday, June 17
SIMON TRÉPANIER, University of Edinburgh
Part 1 offers one new papyrological observation and two new supplements to section d of the Strasburg papyrus. I will argue that the text of ensemble d 5-7 should be restored as follows:
d 5 ⌊Οἴ⌋μ̣οι ὅτ(ι) οὐ πρόσθεν με δι̣⌊ώλεσε νη⌋λεὲς ἦμαρ, DK B 139.1
⌊πρὶν⌋ χηλαῖς̣ ⌊σχέ⌋τ̣λι’ ἔργα βορ̣⌊ᾶς πέρι μητ⌋ί̣σ̣α̣⌊σθαι·⌋ DK B 139.2
[νῦν δ]ὲ μάτη[ν ἐπὶ] τῶι γε νό[μωι κατέδ]ε̣υσα παρειάς.
[ἐξικ]ν̣ούμε[θα γὰ]ρ̣ πολυβενθ̣[ὲς σπεῖος], ὀ̣ΐω
Woe that the pitiless day did not destroy me sooner,
before I plotted horrible deeds with my claws for the sake of food!
But now in vain on account of that law I have drenched my cheeks,
For we have come to a very deep cave, I reckon...
The previous text of d 7, either τῶιδε νότ̣[ωι (Primavesi 2011) or τού]τωι γε νότ̣[ωι (Janko 2004) is wrong, since the basis for the supplemented ‘tau’ is in fact an unrelated letter fragment lying atop the omicron. A figure to support this claim will be supplied at the presentation. The reference to the law in d 7, I will then argue, is an internal reference back to the exile of the daimones in DK B 115. This shows that B 115 belongs in the proem of the On Nature, not the Purifications, or perhaps in a single original work. As for d 8, I propose πολυβενθ̣[ὲς σπεῖος ‘very deep cave’ instead of πολυβενθ̣[εα Δῖνον] ‘very deep whirl’
(Primavesi 2011), on the basis of B 120 ἠλύθομεν τόδ’ ὑπ’ ἄντρον ὑπόστεγον, ‘we have come down to this roofed cavern.’
Part 2 surveys the evidence for the ‘life in Hades’ doctrine in Empedocles, including comparison with the After-life schemes in Pindar’s Second Olympian Ode and Plato’s Phaedo myth.
LEON WASH, University of Chicago
Plants enjoy a special prominence in Empedocles’ thought, but few scholars have studied their role. Most famously there are the four-fold “roots” (ῥιζώματα DK B6). More interestingly, a 24 number of fragments apply the language of vegetation (through φύω, βλαστάνω, etc.) to a wide variety of phenomena, including those roots. When these fragments are combined his claim to have been a shrub (DK B117) and his suggestive use of ἐμπεδόφυλλον (“constant-leafed” DK B77) and ἐμπεδόκαρπα (“constant-fruited” DK B78) to allude, it seems, to his own name, it becomes clear that the vegetal loomed large in his imagination and self-conception. The chief attempts to take account of this imagery are those of Kingsley and Motte, who insist upon its likely origin in mystery cult and magic. Focusing instead upon the less esoteric, this paper will consider the significance of this imagery by reference to Empedocles’ own thought and that of his more prominent literary and philosophical predecessors. Seen in that light, his work becomes a still more noteworthy episode in the peculiar productivity of vegetal metaphors in Greek poetry and philosophy. Their potential will be seen in the striking figuration of psychology and zoogony, and in the anticipation of a universal, teleologically governed nature. Thus in his vegetal imagery, overshadowed though it is by imagery drawn from craft, Empedocles presents a pivotal move toward later authors. The potential of a plant to suggest teleology should not be underestimated.
In the words of Aristotle, “… in plants too there is purpose (that for the sake of which), though it is less articulated” (Phys. 199b9f.). While Empedocles’ notion of purpose, and indeed his vegetal metaphors, are not so well articulated as those of later authors such as Plato, I hope to illuminate in this paper their special relationship and historical role.


Hesiod and the Presocratics: rethinking the origins of Greek philosophy

Date: June 23-25, 2016  ---  Location: Leiden University 

Leopoldo Iribarren (Leiden University)  l.iribarren.baralt@hum.leidenuniv.nl

& Hugo Koning (Leiden University) : h.h.koning@hum.leidenuniv.nl

All lectures take place at the Gravensteen Building, Leiden University, Pieterskerkhof 6.   More: http://hum.leiden.edu/lucas/hesiod-and-the-pre-socratics/

For Empedocles, here is the program of Friday, June 24th

<> 9.00 - 10.00  

Keynote: Jenny Strauss Clay (Virginia) 

‘Hesiod reads Empedocles’

<> 10.30 - 11.15

Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez (Salamanca)

‘The exile of the demons in Empedocles fr. 115 DK and the punishment of the oathbreaking gods in Hesiod’s Theogony

<> 11.1512.00

Alexander Egorov (Utrecht)

‘The Hesiodic Myth of the Five Races and Empedocles’ Account of the Golden Age’

<> 14.00- 14.45

Xavier Gheerbrant (Lille)

‘Narrators, addressees, cosmology and the human condition in Empedocles and Hesiod’s poems’


Anna Marmodoro a mis en ligne sur sa page Academia (https://oxford.academia.edu/AnnaMarmodorola présentation du futur numéro (spécial) de la revue Rhizomata (De Gruyter), numéro consacré à Empédocle. Oliver Primavesi, John Palmer, Patricia Curd, Catherine Rowett, David Sedley sont les contributeurs. Nous reproduisons ici un large extrait de cette présentation :

Empedocles’s metaphysics
Anna Marmodoro
Anna Marmodoro, Corpus Christi College, Oxford OX1 4JF, United Kingdom: anna.marmodoro@philosophy.ox.ac.uk

This issue of Rhizomata comprises a collection of essays with special focus on Empedocles’ metaphysics, authored by international leading experts in the field. The topics investigated include Empedocles’s views on composition, structure, causation, creation, change, causal powers, and the nature of divinity and of divine agency. There is no comprehensive study of such topics in the existing literature on Empedocles.
The essays of this special issue are revised and expanded versions of papers that were presented at an international conference held in Oxford in 2013, as part of my research project Power Structuralism in Ancient Ontologies, funded by a starting investigator award from the European Research Council.1 The project provided not only the financial and organizational resources for the conference to take place, but most importantly the framework for a fresh investigation of Empedocles in the light of the project’s research hypotheses.
The core question the project investigates is this: what are for the ancients the fundamental building blocks of reality, out of which everything is constituted? The project’s hypothesis is that all ancient thinkers (or most of them) accounted for the constitution of all there is with powers as the sole elementary building block in ontology. Powers are instantiated physical properties that dispose their possessor to be or act in a certain way, which is manifested in appropriate circumstances (e.g. something with the power to heat is disposed to heat something cooler in proximity). Powers are directed towards an end (e.g. the power to heat); reaching the end realizes the power and changes the causal profile of the world into a different set of powers (e.g. the realization of the power to heat results in a change of temperature of the object heated).
‘Power Structuralism’ is an expression I introduced (in 2010) and used for two distinct purposes: as a new approach to the study and understanding of ancient Greek philosophy; and as a novel neo-Aristotelian metaphysical system. In its first use, it refers to a method of studying, in the first instance, the metaphysical systems of the main ancient thinkers of the first millennium of Western thought. The method consists in exploring such systems as power ontologies, namely as ontologies whose most fundamental building blocks are powers. This is the relevant sense of power structuralism as backdrop to the present special issue of Rhizomata. (In its second use, the expression ‘Power Structuralism’ refers to my own power ontology. This ontology leans on Aristotle’s own power ontology with respect to its essential metaphysical intuitions, but is developed in new directions within the context of contemporary metaphysical questions and debates.)
Ancient ontological systems, over a period of roughly nine centuries, from 600 BC to 300 AD, have so far been understood and classified on the basis of the derivative items, rather than the basic items that the systems employ for accounting for what there is – i.e. in terms of objects and processes, rather than the powers from which both objects and processes metaphysically derive. For instance, is Heraclitean flux a chain of interacting powers, or a succession of inert categorical properties? Saying that it is a process does not give us an account of what it is. Additionally, one might ask: is Parmenidean immutability inertness, or eternal dynamic equilibrium? And if it is inertness, are the immutables disjoint or thoroughly relational, interdependent on, and interwoven with, one another? Are Democritean atoms inert, or bundles of powers which enable them to ‘struggle’, and ‘collide’ to ‘bind together’ to form what there is in nature? Generalizing from these examples: can it be that the ancients thought that the roots of nature are powers, or did they think that non-powers, i.e. inert entities divested of any active or passive power, were also needed to build the world? Empedocles figures prominently among the thinkers with respect to whom the question needs to be asked. The contributors to this special issue explore Empedocles’ thought, from different angles and with different conclusions, in the light of my power structuralism interpretative proposal.
Primavesi, in his essay on ‘Powers and Numbers in Empedocles’ Physics’, argues that the six fundamental principles that Empedocles posited to account for reality (Love, Strife and the four elements) are all causally efficacious. Love and Strife are efficient causes; but the elements too are causally active, changing their own state (towards homogeneous concentration, by the attraction of like to like). Additionally, Primavesi argues for the significance of the Pythagorean Tetractys on Empedocles thought, which is expressed in the numerical ratios that regulate the cosmic cycle.
In his essay on ‘Elemental Change in Empedocles’, John Palmer argues that Empedocles envisages the elemental roots too as having their own life cycles and undergoing their own (but not self-caused) transformations, like virtually everything else in his system, except Love and Strife. Empedocles conceives of the elements' destruction and generation in terms of their losing and recovering their distinctive qualitative identities as they intermingle with one another through Love's agency and grow apart through Strife's. Palmer argues that this result makes it possible to understand the crucial verses Physika I 234-6 as Empedocles’ general description of the dual processes involved in the generation and destruction of all specimen compounds.
In her essay on ‘Powers, Structure, and Thought in Empedocles’, Patricia Curd raises the question of how it is that Empedocles’ world is an organized system of diverse entities maintaining regularity over long periods of time. She argues that it is the impulses and thoughts of the roots (qua agents in the system) and of Love and Strife that answer these questions. Love and Strife, working within the laws of nature, provide the major structural aspects of the cosmos: the circular motion of the whirl created by the opposing forces produces the masses of roots that are worked up into the heavenly bodies and the living things that populate the cosmos. Curd argues for reading Empedocles as a proto-power-structuralist, by which she means that for Empedocles the basic ingredients of the world (the roots and Love and Strife) are ontologically prior to the medium sized objects of sensible experience.
Catherine Rowett’s essay is titled ‘Love, sex and the gods: why things have divine names in Empedocles’ poem, and why they come in pairs’. She addresses the question of whether, when Empedocles uses a divine name for one of the items in his ontology, this serves merely as a poetic metaphor, or it means that the item in question is a god, with personal agency and intentions. In Empedocles’ poem, most things are described as if they were intentional agents and seem to function as such. Rowett argues that Empedocles was talking of a universe in which all the components, without exception, are living beings with mental capacities and that their power is the power of agents, acting voluntarily, not of inanimate forces acting mechanically. There is nothing in Empedocles’ ontology that could be described as inert matter, and there are no inanimate things.
Concluding this special issue, in his ‘Empedoclean superorganisms’ David Sedley looks at Empedocles’ zoogony, where an original set of single-specialism organisms – solitary hands, eyes, etc. – combine into complex organisms, of which the fittest survive. What the fittest is naturally selected for is not the individual and/or its kin, but, as most manifestly in insect colonies, the cooperative group. Empedocles’ Love likewise works by promoting co-operation, whose emergence in complex organisms reflects her growing power, and the periodic world-organism, Sphairos, her ultimate triumph. This latter divinity is not a homogeneous blend of the elements, but a single self-sufficient superorganism. In this appeal to superorganism theory, Sedley sees in Empedocles a less recognized anticipation of (one strand of) the Darwinian tradition.


Dans le cadre d'une journée d'hommage à Jean Bollack, le vendredi 4 décembre 2015, de 9 h à 18 h 15, à la MESHS (Maison Européenne des Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société, Lille, 2, rue des Canonniers) - espace Baïetto, on pourra écouter :

Xavier Gheerbrant (Université de Lille, Laboratoire STL), Empédocle et la philologie herméneutique de Jean Bollack - de 11 h 35 à 12 heures


Demande de l'organisation gérée par P. Kingsley d'abandonner notre projet de page concernant les travaux de P. Kingsley sur Empédocle. Voir: https://sites.google.com/site/empedoclesacragas/peter-kingsley

Changement immédiat de cette page. Il n'est pas dans notre intention de gêner les intérêts commerciaux de cette organisation. Nous espérons au contraire que P. Kingsley, appuyé par son organisation, pourra produire de nouveaux textes sur Empédocle.


L'adresse de la revue Organon :


VOIR "ARCHIVES" POUR LA SUITE de CHRONIQUE : http://sites.google.com/site/empedoclesacragas/archives



Pour d'anciennes informations, voir Archives empedocles.acragas.googlepages.com/archives/




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  : site concernant 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/ . 

Voir en particulier http://www.placita.org/Citationsnf.aspx?iioc=1979&auteur=40 pour disposer, à partir des fragments répertoriés par Diels-Kranz, d'un très grand nombre de sources antiques sur lesquelles une édition des fragments de l'oeuvre de l'Agrigentin peut s'appuyer. Voir aussi http://www.placita.org/parmenide/empedocles.aspx?auteur=40    On obtiendra notamment sur ce site l'édition d'Empédocle de H. Stein (1852), de H. Diels 1901, de H. Diels et W. Kranz de 1951.

Le site placita.org est en constante progression. C'est un outil de recherche remarquable. Nous invitons tous les chercheurs qui ont des propositions de source antique à ajouter, ou bien de "notes" (http://www.placita.org/Listenotes.aspx), ou bien simplement des remarques à formuler, à contacter  g.journee@placita.org (http://www.placita.org/Contactsnf.aspx). https://centreleonrobin.academia.edu/G%C3%A9rardJourn%C3%A9e


Pour consulter des articles et des livres : archive.org    http://www.jstor.org/  (en ouvrant un compte)   https://play.google.com/store/search?q=Empedocles&c=books      http://gallica.bnf.fr/editors?type=books          http://www.europeana.eu/portal/

Plus : voir https://sites.google.com/site/empedoclesacragas/links-e-addresses

Le portrait en couleur d'Empédocle, en haut de la présente page, est l'oeuvre du peintre ΓΙΑΝΝΗΖ ΤΖΕΡΜΙΑΣ. Ce portrait apparaît dans son ouvrage ΠΕΡΙ ΦΥΖΕΩΣ, Athènes Gabrielides, 1995. Des tableaux des quatre racines divines, de l'éther, de Neikos et de Philotès sont présentés. Au total : 55 tableaux. Je remercie Stavros Kouloumentas de m'avoir fait connaître cet ouvrage. En savoir plus : 



Articles de Jean-Claude Picot   (disponibles sur demande jecipic@gmail.com)

§                 « 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.) Pour lire l'article : https://sites.google.com/site/empedoclesacragas/ancient-philosophy-mystery-and-magic

§           « 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 webhttps://sites.google.com/site/empedoclesacragas/les-cinq-sources-dont-parle-empedocle 

§           « 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. Ci-après, en bas de page, le projet d'article en français (Pdf téléchargeable), qui fut ensuite traduit en anglais et publié par Brill : Fr. 115.3 - français

§            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


§             « 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. 9-37.

L'article est disponible en PDF et peut être téléchargé gratuitement sur le site d'Organon :



§             « Water and bronze in the hands of Empedocles' Muse », Organon, 41, 2009, pp. 59-84.

L'article est disponible en PDF et peut être téléchargé gratuitement sur le site d'Organon :


      §              « Along a mountain path with Empedocles  »Elenchos, XXXIII, 2012, fasc. 1, p. 5-20. Article écrit en collaboration avec William Berg.

      §              « Les dieux du fr. 128 d'Empédocle et le mythe des races »Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 2012(3), p.339-356. 

      §            « Sagesse face à Parole de Zeus : une nouvelle lecture du fr. 123.3 DK d’Empédocle »Revue de Philosophie Ancienne, XXX(1), 2012, p. 23-57. (B 122, B 123, B 128.)

       §           « L’image du πνιγεύς dans les Nuées. Un Empédocle au charbon », in : Comédie et Philosophie : Socrate et les "Présocratiques" dans les Nuées d'Aristophane, ed. A. Laks – R. Saetta  Cottone, Paris : Editions Rue d'Ulm, 2013, p. 113-129.

       §              « Apollon et la φρὴν ἱερὴ καὶ ἀθέσφατος (Empédocle, fr. 134 DK) », AFC, 11, 2012, p. 1-31. On-line: 


       §             « Un nom énigmatique de l'air chez Empédocle (fr. 21.4 DK)  »Les Etudes philosophiques, 2014, n°3, p. 343-373.

       §              « Empedocles vs. Xenophanes: differing notions of the divine », Organon, 45, 2013, p. 5-19. Article écrit en collaboration avec William Berg. 

L'article est disponible en PDF et peut être téléchargé gratuitement sur le site d'Organon :


        §             « Cleombrotus cites Empedocles in Plutarch’s De defectu: a question of method in interpreting fr. 24 DK »Elenchos, XXXV, 1, 2014, p. 127-148. Article écrit en collaboration avec William Berg. 

        §             « Lions and promoi: final phase of exile for Empedocles' daimones  », Phronesis 60(4), 2015, p. 380-409. L'article peut être téléchargé en PDF : voir tout en bas de la présente page 

Ċ Picot & Berg - Lions and promoi - Phronesis 2015 - 60 (4).pdf  Article écrit en collaboration avec William Berg. 

Voir en complément l'Appendice mis en ligne sur la page web : https://sites.google.com/site/empedoclesacragas/fr-146

Articles en préparation : sur "Penser le Bien et le Mal avec Empédocle", sur le fr. 134 et le fr. 29, sur le fr. 6, sur le fr. 135, sur P. Kingsley et le fr. 62.

Contact : jecipic@gmail.com


Membre associé du Centre Léon Robin (UMR 8061 - Paris IV - ENS Ulm)




Pausanias Empedocles,
Sep 15, 2012, 2:55 AM
Pausanias Empedocles,
Sep 24, 2015, 5:10 AM