Empedocles

Special attention in this Newsletter for pythagorean women.                  Sarah B. Pomeroy  interview + CV, Hypatia,  Museum of Pythagoras,
basilica Pitagorica, Conferences , New books, Book reviews, Book chapters, Journal articles, Internet

With Empedocles, the qualities of a creative religious, mytho-poetic imagination fluent in Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and Parmenides allies itself with a rational mind keenly interested in understanding the natural world.:
The first condition for an understanding of Empedocles is to banish the notion of a gulf between religious beliefs and scientific views. His work is a whole, in which religion, poetry, and philosophy are indissolubly united. His imagination is constructive, gathering elements from every available quarter-Hesiodic and Ionian cosmogony, Parmenidean rationalism, Orphic mysticism, poetic legend, the experience of a physician, a poet’s sensuous response to the sights and sounds of mature, and the fears and hopes of a spirit exiled from heaven for ‘a brief span of life that is not life’- but building all these elements together into a unitary vision of the life of the world and the destiny of the human soul, bound, like the macrocosm, upon the wheel of birth and death (Cornford 122).
To give an idea of how Empedocles articulates the elements of muthos and logos in his system,  eleven fragments have been chosen in an attempt to illustrate the basic aspects of his system with an attention to mythical aspects:

“Friendship in Early Greek Ethics” examines the accounts of friendship (philia) in the early philosophical literature and argues that there is a coherent narrative of philosophical theorizing of friendship prior to Aristotle, one which does not make the Presocratics and Socratics mere pre-Aristotelian. The main treatments of friendship considered in this chapter—namely, those in Empedocles, Democritus, the Sophists, and the Socratics—can be understood as efforts to provide a convincing explanation of what motivates the relation of philia and to isolate the conditions for and key features of this specific form of relation essential to the good life.

http://www.instoria.it/home/melenconia_albrecht_durer_I.htm

Nell’antica teoria umorale dei quattro temperamenti la melanconia è lo stato patologico dovuto al dominio dell’atra bilis, la fredda e secca “bile nera”, sugli altri umori attivi nell’uomo (bile gialla, flegma e sangue). Secondo la mitologia astrale classica, la personalità melanconica era governata da Saturno, l’archetipo planetario più alto e remoto, tanto da definire saturnina quella maledetta indole geniale – combattuta tra “mal di vivere” e fervido intelletto – tipica di artisti e pensatori.

Bien que les notions de φιλία et δίκη n’apparaissent pas conjointement dans les fragments présocratiques, elles relèvent de champs similaires, qu’il s’agisse de la nécessité cosmique ou d’une forme conditionnelle de nécessité. Mais, tandis que l’amitié cosmique d’Empédocle (la Φιλότης) est conçue comme une force d’unification et d’homogénéisation des contrariétés, le modèle développé par Démocrite des rapports entre amis se fonde sur l’attraction des semblables – contrairement à ce qui pouvait d’abord sembler ressortir des analyses aristotéliciennes. Le concept de justice, initialement relatif aux lois de l’univers et de l’être (avec Anaximandre, Héraclite et Parménide), s’élabore progressivement via la question de la rétribution proportionnelle et de la mesure, mais sans s’élever jusqu’à une dimension vraiment délibérative, puisque le choix se restreint à consentir ou non à la nécessité.

This chapter examines the story of Salmacis and Hermaphroditus from book 4 of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, whose two bodies are merged into one. A series of connections are drawn between Hermaphroditus and the representation of the primordial universe at the beginning of the Metamorphoses, where there is a continual oscillation between binary oppositions. By placing the Hermaphroditus narrative alongside the other ‘mythological’ stories of corporeal transformation, Ovid highlights how the apparent boundaries which exist in terms of textual genre are as fluid and unstable as those which are perceived to exist between genders. Ovid conveys this through the use of multiple allusions to ‘scientific’ accounts of ‘intersex’ beings in Empedocles, Plato’s Symposium and Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. Ovid’s portrayal of Hermaphroditus expresses the breakdown of corporeal distinction through blurring the divisions between truth and falsehood, while undermining the use of opposition as a basic organizing principle across the cultural spectrum.

From ancient to classical philosophy there have been different comprehensions about attraction and repulsion as being the essence of matter, as well as that matter was considered as the unity of fullness (i.e. that of particles) and the void (i.e. as the space in particles and around particles). In this article, the philosophical comprehensions concerning the attraction and repulsion are briefly presented and verified by examples taken from modern natural sciences (physics, chemistry) and mathematics. The evolution of the particles of matter, space and movement are discussed. This starts from the premise that the total sum of all attractions and sum of all repulsions in the universe remain constant, and that each individual attraction is compensated by corresponding repulsions. It is thus shown that the attraction at any level of the structure of matter is compensated by the repulsions at both the higher and lower levels of structure of matter (i.e. according to Empedocles' rule, 5th century BC). As a consequence, appropriate changes occur in the essential properties of matter (order and disorder, homogeneity and heterogeneity, necessity and optional, discontinuity and continuity), where an increase of some property at one level (N) is compensated by decreases both at higher (N+1) and lower (N-1) levels of structure of matter.

This essay examines Aristotle’s critique of metaphor as a vehicle of knowledge in scientific discourse. It focuses on Meterologica 2 where, within an assessment of Presocratic theories about the origin of the sea, Aristotle argues against Empedocles’ expression “the sea is the sweat of the earth” (DK 31 B 55). While elucidating Aristotle’s own position on the origin of the sea vis-à-vis Presocratic theories, the essay shows the difference between Empedocles and Aristotle in the conception of metaphor. For Empedocles metaphors express identity. For Aristotle, on the other hand, they enclose analogies. In his ad hoc critique, Aristotle gives a lesson on scientific discourse. He deconstructs Empedocles’ metaphor into a set of analogies and demands the definition of processes, an assessment of the reciprocal equivalence between processes, and the validation of empirical observation.

Sokrates öncesi filozofların doğayı açıklama çabası varlık, oluş, değişim sorunları etrafında döner. Bu sorunlara önerilen çözümlerde Sokrates öncesi filozofların gözettiği temel izlek ise doğanın birlikteliğini, biraradalığını diğer bir deyişle doğanın dayanışmasını sağlamaktır. Bu makalede, dayanışma sorununun Sokrates öncesi doğa filozofları için varlık, oluşum, değişim sorunlarından daha belirleyici olduğu ileri sürülmekte, bu sorulara önerilen çözümlerin dayanışma sorunuyla doğrudan ilişkisi serimlenmektedir.
Pre-Socratic philosophers have engaged in the problems of being, becoming, and change in nature. Pre-Socratics have followed up the principle of solidarity through their explanations of the nature. In this article, it is claimed that PreSocratics have considered the problem of the solidarity prior to the problems of being, becoming, and change, and then it is argued how the problem of solidarity is related to the problems of being, becoming, and change.

Empedocles-the-scientist got a minoritarian attention, and this paper was meant to do something in order to redress the situation.
Two  preliminary questions are addressed here at the beginning: (1) how folklore, speculation and 'science' do coexist in his verses? (2) what to thing of the seemingly secundary doxai, esp. when they show no clear connection with the leading ideas of an ancient student of nature? My remarks on these topics include a note on virtual disciplines and polumathia.
Then some minor topics are examined: thermal waters; eyes as lanterns; why earth remains immobile despite the cosmic vortex.
My final (and larger) section is devoted to B31.100 (the klepsudra simile) and the possibility that Emp. has in mind the secondary branches of the bronchial tubes

RESUMO : Queremos levantar algumas questões referentes à tese que trata do materialismo de Empédocles a partir da ideia de elemento. O termo “elemento” não aparece no poema, por isso, a primeira questão é se faz realmente sentido falar de “elemento” na física de Empédocles. Observemos, paralelamente, que a ideia de elemento tem pelo menos duas leituras possíveis, e ambas podem ser encontradas no primeiro livro da Metafísica de Aristóteles: uma leitura de caráter temporal, que encontramos na sua definição (983b 6-11), outra de caráter mais geométrico que aparece na apresentação dos atomistas e faz analogia com as letras do alfabeto (985b 15-19). Esta outra aparece também no tratado De Generatione et Corruptione (315b9-15) em que os interlocutores de Aristóteles são os pensadores itálicos – e particularmente Empédocles e os atomistas. A crítica que Aristóteles fará às contestações de Empédocles quanto à realidade da geração e corrupção, porque este diz que não há nascimento nem morte, mas tão somente mistura e crase (DK 31 B8), é toda baseada em uma concepção da subsistência ou não da essência (οὐσία). Além das alterações de ordem qualitativa, quantitativa e espacial, que podem ser explicadas segundo as teorias das diferenças de composição elementar dos atomistas, Aristóteles requer também a compreensão de uma alteração mais radical da forma, quando um corpo inteiro deixa de ser isto que ele é ou vem a ser de algo que ele não era. Nesta visada, Empédocles seria, para Aristóteles, um pensador que pouco difere dos atomistas. Para os Atomistas, e para Empédocles, assim como também para os Eleatas, não há realmente geração e corrupção.
PALAVRAS CHAVE: Empédocles, elemento, pré-socráticos, Aristóteles, matéria
ABSTRACT: We want to raise some issues about the Aristotelian thesis of Empedocles’ materialism based from the idea of element. The term "element" does not appear in the poem, so the first question is whether it really makes sense to speak of "elements" in the physics of Empedocles. I Observe, in parallel, that the idea of element has at least two possible readings, and both can be found in the first book of Aristotle's Metaphysics: a reading considering time, which we find in its definition (983b 6-11), and another reading considering space appearing in the presentation of atomistic philosophy which makes an analogy with the letters of the alphabet (985b 15-19). This also appears in another treatise, De generatione et Corruptione (315b9-15), in which the interlocutors of Aristotle are italics thinkers – and especially Empedocles and the atomists. Aristotle criticises Empedocles’ disavoyment on the reality of generation and corruption, for the latter says that there is neither birth nor death, but only mixing and krasis (DK 31 B8). Aristotle based his criticism on a conception of subsistence or not of the essence (οὐσία). Besides the changes of qualitative, quantitative and spatial order, which can be explained according to the theories of differences in elemental composition of the atomists, Aristotle also requires an understanding of a more radical change in the way when a whole body ceases to be what it was or comes to be something he was not. At this sight, Empedocles would be, for Aristotle, a thinker who differs little from atomistic. For the Atomists, and Empedocles, as well as to all the Eleatics, there is really not generation and corruption.
KEYWORDS: Empedocles, element, pre-Socratics, Aristotle, matter.

I argue that there is nothing strange about the idea of writing philosophy in verse (as though the normal way to write it was in prose) for any philosopher up to and including Parmenides and Empedocles. Rather the reverse: the idea of writing philosophy as joined up arguments in prose is what is novel and needs explaining, if it even happened in any recognisable sense before Plato.  In a predominantly oral culture in which teaching is done by memorable declamation, verse is the default.
In addition it is a mistake to detach the content of a work of philosophy from its mode of presentation as though one might think the thoughts in prose and then "put them into poetry". Philosophers think their thoughts in the form that they can be expressed. The form of the poetry is part of the expression: it would be a mistake to think that there is a formless thought that is hidden under a fancy but unnecessary cloak of poetry.

Empedocles, who is accepted to have lived in the 5th century B.C. (495-435 B.C.), established a new mindset by bringing a spiritual interpretation to the views of natural scientists who came before him with the identity of bard, statesman, orator, religious leader and philosopher. He put forward a strong claim to the questioning of the first matter that constitutes the essence of the universe, claiming that no single substance constitutes the basis of the existence of the universe and put forward the four-element theory. He used religious facts to defend this idea and gave a religious approach to scientific inferences by stating that each of the qualities possessed by divine beings symbolizes an element. Empedocles has managed to bring a mystical understanding to the society of the period he lived by adding a legendary identity to his intellectual life. Thus, he transformed the purely methodical mindset of natural philosophers into an extraordinary religious pattern and supported a doctrine that puts science into the background with a mythological narrative. For this reason, his life and thoughts have been the subject of discussion for centuries, arousing serious curiosity even in the periods after him. In this study, it is emphasized that the philosophy of Empedocles can be related to other cultures other than the Hellenic elements and the misperceptions caused by periodic interpretations by bringing a new perspective on this centuries-long dilemma. Especially, the main point of this study is the religious interaction caused by the Orphism movement and the effect of Egyptian philosophy on the Greek mindset and how the philosophers, who grew up in this culture, proceeded in the mixed structure of the two cultures. Structured Abstract: Empedocles (495-435 B.C.) was too cosmopolitan thinker to be the chief architect of a simple thought system. He is a person who somehow absorbs the views of all philosophers included in this study and reveals an individual structure. Although the influence of many movements in his discourse causes complexity, he has managed to become a popular thought pioneer thanks to the facts in which each movement finds something of itself. As a person who can carry the triangle of metaphysics, religion and philosophy, what he did, where he lived and how he died became legendary. There are three elements that shook Empedocles in terms of intellectuality. These are: place, time and situation. When we look at the common points of them, we see that the atmosphere brought about the political and sociocultural changes and we see that the main center is Egypt.

When Empedocles uses a divine name for one of the items in his ontology, does this serve merely as a poetic metaphor or does it mean 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. Is there anything in the universe that does not have a mind or does not engage in intentional action? In this paper I argue 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.

It is well-known that as a term, Nietzsche’s Übermensch derives from Lucian of Samosata’s hyperanthropos. I argue that Zarathustra’s teaching of the overman acquires new resonances by reflecting on the context of that origination from Lucian’s Kataplous — which literally means sailing into port — referring to the soul’s journey, ferried by Charon, guided by Hermes, into the afterlife. The Kataplous he tyrannos, usually translated Downward Journey or The Tyrant, is a Menippean satire telling the tale of the “overman” who is imagined to be superior to others of “lesser” station in this-worldly life and the same tyrant after his (comically unwilling) transport into the underworld. As a reflection on the life and the death of Zarathustra, this essay also explores the politics of kingship for Empedocles as reformer in terms of Hölderlin’s Death of Empedocles and Nietzsche’s unpublished drafts on the same topic. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche points to a perspective beyond the here and now, beyond the “values” of our all-too-worldly and all-too-human concerns, no matter whether in terms of perceived political/economic advantage, or indeed in the pursuit of more quotidian satisfactions.

Like many philosophers before them, Plutarch and Porphyry refused to eat animals, but unlike their predecessors, each sets out numerous arguments in favour of vegetarianism in their writings. Their arguments are many and varied. Some tell us that we should not eat animals because killing and eating them makes us more likely to kill and eat human beings, some tell us that it is because human beings may reincarnate as animals, others tell us that it is because animals are rational creatures that are owed moral consideration from humans, and yet others say that it is because meat-eating has negative effects on the bodies and souls of human meat-eaters. Notably, while in some cases, meat-eating is presented as wrong because of what it does to animals, in others, it is so only because of what it does to human beings. In the following paper, I argue that Plutarch and Porphyry are, in fact, more concerned about the effect that meat-eating has on human beings than they are about the effect that it has on non-human animals. In particular, they consider meat-eating an act of human intemperance, which distracts one's higher soul from contemplation of the Platonic forms. Thus, while their reasoning results in a number of practical recommendations regarding the treatment of animals, the Platonists are not particularly concerned about the fate of the animals themselves.

This practice-based research sets out to explore new ways of visualizing and conceptualizing the notion of aura in art. It departs from Walter Benjamin’s widely known critique of aura, the thesis of which is that aura as ‘uniqueness’ of an artwork decays with the rise of technological reproducibility. Benjamin affirms with the decay of aura also the loss of the transposition of religious projections of distance onto fascist politics. His thesis had a major influence on contemporary critical theory where aura is still approached with great reservations. These concern a relapse into religious structures, which mirror, so the thesis argues, the fact that aura has been, also in Benjamin’s ambivalent conceptualization, left ‘territorialized’ in a regime of transcendence in art.
The main research question has been: What could aura mean for painting in the expanded field, especially in relation to digital imaging? The outcomes of this research are paintings, works on paper (both involving the input of digital sources), digital films and writings. The thesis develops a reading and visual ‘mapping’ of aura in the framework of Gilles Deleuze’s (and Félix Guattari’s) ontology of immanence where difference and its repetition as differentiation replaces the static metaphysics of ‘origin’ or ‘essence’.
Splendor Solis, a series of book illuminations from the Northern Renaissance proved to become a major visual source for experimentation. Aura is introduced in this alchemical work as the ‘splendour’ of Becoming, the deframing power of the differential processes that accompany individuation.
As a sensation experienced in intuitive art practice, aura affects and is affected by a field of interacting multiplicities and the potentiality of temporal differentiations, which reach beyond any ascertained subjectivity into virtual collective questions and problems. Aura suggests as an ‘echo’ of Becoming an involvement with affects, and the research follows strands between qualitative intense moments that activate a ‘wound’ and extend to what Deleuze calls a ‘wound
i
that existed before me’, an experience related to the synthesis of future, which confronts an individual with its emerging double.
Constructing, or ‘mapping’ aura as visuals on an axis that involves media of ‘uniqueness’ and digital technology gives those outcomes an ontological status of ‘simulacra’ or assemblages, far from the traditional associations aura would evoke. Touching both experience and experiment, so the thesis argues, aura in immanence can provide an access to the virtualities of the ‘new’ in art practice.
The research introduces a visual scenario or ‘conceptual persona’ for intuition, which as method of this research folds both practice and writing. Friedrich Hölderlin’s unfinished play Empedocles at Etna, provides a metaphor or metamorphosis encompassing aura’s and intuition’s involvement with immediacy and duration.
The practice documentation of the thesis reflects the strands of the research as plurality of its differentiations, allowing the dynamics of its method in action to reflect the dynamics of aura.

This essay proposes a synchronic reading of Empedocles’ fragments that emphasizes the relationship of the mortal human mind to all of the determinants in the system, including the Sphere which represents the zenith of Love’s power and the vortex which represents the zenith of Strife, simultaneously in the present moment, over the diachronic account in which the systematic determinants are disposed in a temporal cycle of world history with the two principles alternating in dominance. The essay does not seek to claim that such a diachronic account is not present in Empedocles, as it evidently is, but rather to argue that we must understand Empedocles’ discourse as operating on more than one register, and that in this very distinction we may see the cosmic principles of Love and Strife operating as epistemic principles as well. Love, on this reading, is what makes possible the perception of the integrity of living things on a continuum from the recognition of functional biological structures to the recognition of the metaphysical character of the individual daimōn, while Strife is active in the analytic that decomposes such unities into their elemental components as well as their historical process of emergence.

This book presents a new account of Thales based on the idea that Acheloios, a deity equated with water in the ancient Greek world and found in Miletos during Thales’ life, was the most important cultic deity influencing the thinker, profoundly shaping his philosophical worldview. In doing so, it also weighs in on the metaphysical and epistemological dichotomy that seemingly underlies all academia—the antithesis of the methodological postulate of Marxian dialectical materialism vis-à-vis the Platonic idea of fundamentally real transcendental forms. Unbeknownst to many scholars, there are various Neo-Marxian thinkers that position the origin of coinage as the pivotal technological development giving rise to impersonal “metaphysical cosmology,” suggesting that the value of money was more-or-less projected back onto the cosmos in the form of “ideal substances.” While the arguments are incredibly sophisticated and persuasive, their conclusions (either stated or implied) are rather difficult to swallow: the self is merely an illusion, abstract ideas of an ultimate source of value, like God or the Good, are totally delusional (as is the soul, and presumably any notion of inherent human dignity), and essentially everything is reducible to mankind’s enslavement to commodities and the notion of our own objectified labor, which is the true source of all value according to Marx. Not only is this an alarming belief that many scholars (consciously or unconsciously) have adopted, since essentially any action could be “justified,” it is also demonstrably false, since it rests on a misunderstanding of Thales and misconception of philosophy as such.

My work rectifies that misunderstanding. In an important sense, it is an attempt at redefining philosophy as a “love of wisdom,” which I argue was accurate even in the Presocratic setting, and it uses the influence of Acheloios on Thales to do so. Throughout its pages I explore the etymology and historical uses of the word ὔδωρ, examine the archaeological context of 7th to 6th century Miletos, consider various aquatic myths Thales encountered, and highlight a hitherto overlooked tradition stemming from Thales and influencing such thinkers as Pythagoras, Empedokles, and Hippo, which culminates in a completely new reading of Plato’s Phaedrus, a dialogue in which Plato responds to the exact type of thinking employed by the Neo-Marxians. It is there that we find Socrates and Phaedrus surrounded by the iconography of Acheloios and the nymphs, all while they lie reclined like river gods (the sinews of Acheloios) on the banks of the Ilisos. And it is in that dialogue that Plato defines philosophy as a love of wisdom—the beholding of a multiplicity of hermeneutical frameworks—and alludes to the fact that it began with the sacrifice of Acheloios, the initial philosophical maneuver which he attributes to Thales. The book ends with a threefold rejoinder to the Neo-Marxian school, corresponding to the λόγος, μῦθος, and ἔργον of Acheloios. It turns out that, (1) the λόγος of Acheloios contained the ideal preconditions conducive to an abstraction to a more refined philosophical worldview in which divine water operated as the One among the Many; (2) the μῦθος of Acheloios actually encouraged the application of the notion of sacrifice to Acheloios himself (thus revealing his essence as divine water); and, (3), the ἔργον of Acheloios, in which he kneels in assent to sacrifice, is found on a coin that was probably designed by Thales. In the final analysis, I suggest that the tradition of Acheloios is reflective of a greater philosophical truth, and that by following Thales’ lead, we transcend the Marxian hermeneutic of doubt and reorient ourselves toward the οὐσια ὄντως οὖσα.

In the present paper, I focus on Empedocles’ fragment 115 DK, on the exile of
the daimons, which is largely inspired by a passage of Hesiod’s Theogony (783-806), regarding the expulsion from Olympus of gods having sworn false oaths upon Styx. Given that there are no studies exclusively dedicated to comparing these two passages, this article attempts to analyse how Empedocles employed Hesiod’s model in his account of the destiny of the fallen daimon.

La tesi tenta di studiare l'opera teofrastea del De sensibus, importante testimonianza di scritto di ricerca all'interno del Peripato. Nei tre capitoli della tesi ho affrontato i problemi della tradizione manoscritta del testo, ho compiuto uno studio sulla teoria della percezione in Aristotele, Teofrasto e Stratone, ho analizzato l'impianto dialettico che struttura il testo del trattato e ho studiato il concetto di "endoxon". Infine ho interpretato il contenuto dossografico dell'opera, proponendo alcune interpretazioni originali per la comprensione delle dottrine dei pensatori presenti nel De sensibus. In appendice compare la mia traduzione in italiano, basata sul testo edito da Diels nei Doxographi Graeci.

Contents:
Introduction, news from the library
Acknowledgements. Tabula Cebetis 1573. Colophon
Pythagoras Foundation 40 years
John Dillon, interview + CV
International Association for Presocratic Studies. Conference 2014 Conferences + Internet
New books
New book chapters
Book reviews
New journal articles

"Rethinking the Presocratics" / "Ripensare i presocratici" is a book of mine, published by MIMESIS, Milano in July 2023..
A considerable discontinuity from the current image of most Presocratics marks it.
To begin with: it is still widespread the idea that Thales was all about water, Anaximander all about apeiron and Anaximenes all about air, while no fourth prominent Milesian happens to be at least mentioned in current surveys on the Presocratics. Parmenides, in turn, continues to be considered the great philosopher of being and nothing else, Zeno a volunteer fighter in defense of the honor of Parmenides, and so on.
As it will be apparent from the synopsis, I can no more adhere to such an orthodoxy. In my opinion these ancient intellectuals did much more and much better.
In previous books and papers I argued for individual points (on Thales, on Parmenides, etc.), while this time I tried to  look around and submit a whole group of ancient investigators (a 'world', one could say) to a renewed curiosity. As a consequence, their portrayals are becoming remarkably different from those that are in circulation. For example, a Presocratic Botany now surfaces for the very first time...
SINCE  MANY CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHERS AND SCIENTISTS, NOT UNLIKE ALMOST ALL TEXTBOOKS, SEEM TOO OFTEN PRONE TO THE MOST CONVENTIONAL PORTRAYALS OF THIS WORLD, MY BOOK IS PRIMARILY ADDRESSED TO ALERT THEM.

Contents:

Pitagora. Il monumento di Metaponto.
Pythagorean Self-Awareness Intervention  (PSAI)
Crotone, the construction of the statue of Pythagoras
New books, Book chapters, Book reviews, Internet, academia.edu,
Journal articles, Conferences, Website visitors