See Diels, “Empedokles und Gorgias,” 2 (_Berl. Sitzb._, 1884). Theophrastos said that Empedokles was born “not long after Anaxagoras” (_Dox._ p. 477, 17); and Alkidamas made him the fellow-pupil of Zeno under Parmenides, and the teacher of Gorgias (see below, p. 231, n. 5). Now Gorgias was a little older than Antiphon (_b._ Ol. LXX.), so it is clear we must go back _at least_ to 490 B.C. for the birth of Empedokles. Even these indications are enough to show that he must have been a boy in the reign of Theron, the tyrant who co-operated with Gelon of Syracuse in the repulse of the Carthaginians from Himera. His son and successor, Thrasydaios, was a man of another stamp. Before his accession to the throne of Akragas, he had ruled in his father’s name at Himera, and completely estranged the affections of its inhabitants. Theron died in 472 B.C., and Thrasydaios at once displayed all the vices and follies usual in the second holder of a usurped dominion. After a disastrous war with Hieron of Syracuse, he was driven out; and Akragas enjoyed a free government till it fell before the Carthaginians more than half a century later.[505] Footnote 505: E. Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterth._ ii. p. 508. [Sidenote: Empedokles as a politician.] 99. In the political events of the next few years, Empedokles certainly played an important part; but our information on the subject is of a very curious kind. The Sicilian historian Timaios told one or two stories about him, which are obviously genuine traditions picked up about a hundred and fifty years afterwards; but, like all popular traditions, they are a little confused. The picturesque incidents are remembered, but the essential parts of the story are dropped. Still, we may be thankful that the “collector of old wives’ tales,”[506] as sneering critics called him, has enabled us to measure the historical importance of Empedokles for ourselves by showing us how he was pictured by the great-grandchildren of his contemporaries. Footnote 506: He is called γραοσυλλέκτρια in Souidas, _s.v._ The view taken in the text as to the value of his evidence is that of Holm.