Some Byzantine scholia to Aristotle offer numerical indications on the time-length of some phases of Empedocles’ cosmic cycle. In recent years an interpretation has become established, according to which the scholia pro-vide evidence for a cycle with three periods: the Sphairos and two opposite phases of Love’s and Strife’s unfolding. This paper emphasizes, in contrast, that the picture of the cycle we can draw from the scholia is not as clear-cut as generally supposed. On the contrary, the scholia can be adapted to dif-ferent, even contrasting, reconstructions of the Empedoclean cycle. Moreo-ver, they seem to challenge the received idea of Empedocles’ cycle as the Sphairos and two symmetrical phases of increasing Love and Strife. Rather, they can conform to a picture of the cycle with two cosmic periods: a period of rest and union under Love (Sphairos) and a period of movement and separation under Strife. Ultimately, this contribution emphasizes the highly problematic nature of the scholia, indicates the difficulties in drawing whole cosmological systems from them and advises against any ‘orthodoxy’ in their interpretation.

一些拜占庭式的霍乱到亚里斯多德提供了Empedocles宇宙周期某些阶段时间长度的数字指示。近年来，已经建立了一种解释，据此，霍乱为三个周期的循环提供了证据：Sphairos和Love's和Strife's展开的两个相反阶段。相比之下，本文强调，我们可以从霍乱中得出的周期图并不像通常认为的那样清晰。相反，霍乱可以适应Empedoclean周期的不同甚至对比的重建。此外，他们似乎在挑战已被接受的Empedocles周期概念，如Sphairos和两个增加恋爱和冲突的对称阶段。相反，它们可以与具有两个宇宙周期的周期图一致：在爱（Sphairos）的统治下休息和团结的时期，在冲突（Strife）的统治下运动与分离的时期。归根结底，这项贡献强调了霍乱的严重问题性质，指出了从中汲取整个宇宙学系统的困难，并建议不要在解释中使用任何“正统”的东西。