Critical Note: Empedocles and his Interpreters
1995; Brill; Volume: 40; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1163/156852895321052035
ISSN1568-5284
Autores Tópico(s)Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies
ResumoThough 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
Referência(s)