Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Critical Note: Empedocles And His Interpreters

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this chapter

+ Tax (if applicable)

Chapter Summary

Though Peter Kingsleys paper contains a number of suggestions that are not without some value, his reconstruction of the doxographical traditions concerned with Empedocles four elements is not good enough. Anyone who compares ps.Plutarch (P) as a whole with Daibers German version of Qusta ibn Luqa (Q) as a whole see immediately that the latter is a translation of a variety of the former. It is absurd to argue from a single paragraphin this case I 3.20where Q as to the exegesis of the divine names Hera and Aidoneus agrees not with P 878A and others but with Stobaeus (S) and others, that Q translates a source other than P. This chapter looks more closely at the differences between these passages in P and S dealing with Empedocles.

Keywords: doxographical traditions; Empedocles fragment; Peter Kingsley



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Aëtiana — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation