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)

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)