CHAPTER THREE

THE ITALIAN SUCCESSION

III 1 Harmony and Dissension

It has been pointed out abovel that in Ref. I 5 Hippolytus speaks of 'other physicists who came after' Pythagoras, Empedocles and Heraclitus, and states that it is not worthwhile to describe the tenets of these [for us moderns] anonymous people because they do not really differ from their predecessors (viz., in the Italian succession). Cf. also Ref. I 2.1, 1:ilv atpeatv oi. 8ta8e~aJlEVot ou 7tOA:u 8u1v£YKPhilolaus in Herakleia, Theorides and Eurytus in Meta­ pontum and Archytas in Tarentum. Iamblichus also mentions Epichar­ mus, and continues §§ 267 ff. = Vorsokr. 58 A with a long list of early Pythagoreans whose names are known while admitting that many remain anonymous (p. 143.16-7 = Vorsokr. I p. 446.8-10), 1:&v o£ OUJl7ttXV­ 'tOW llu8ayopdrov 'tOU<; JleV ayvro1:ac; 'tE KHippo­ lytus had seen lists such as the one in Iamblichus, one may understand both why he speaks of Pythagoras' numerous following and omits to describe in details the views of those who wrote. We may note, how­ ever, that he has placed Ecphantus (who is on Iamblichus' list of known Pythagoreans, De vit. pyth. p. 143.20 f.) outside the Italian succession. In Ref. I 5 the Pythagorean harmony is contrasted with the disagree­ ment among the Ionian physicists to be treated after the Italian succes­ sion: &A.A.ot &Uroc; 7tEpt

1 Supra, Ch. I 4, Ch. II 2. 28 CHAPTER THREE

M.). A comparable situation is to be found in Ref. I 10, 16.2 ff. W. = 71.2 ff. M. Having stated that physical philosophy (i.e. the Ionian succes­ sion) deriving from Thales persisted until Archelaus, whose pupil was Socrates,2 Hippolytus says that there are also a good many others, viz. other physicists, who proposed 'contrasting tenets' (8tacp6pou<; M~a<;) on the divine and the nature of the whole ('tf\~ 'tou 1tPhilo of Alexandria (see e.g. Her. 246-8, Abr. 162-4) and among Christian au­ thors;4 in chs. 5 and 10, however, Hippolytus is explicit about the con­ trasting views of the 'other' physicists only, i.e. the Ionians, the Eleatics and the two individuals treated in chs. 15-16. It is important that he does not include his Pythagoreans.

III 2 The Position of the Xenophanes Chapter

As we all know, Diels argued that the doctrinal contents of chs. 11-16

2 Cf. supra, Ch. II 1. 3 Also a technical term in Diog. Laert., e.g. II 47 (main successors of Socrates). 4 Cf. e.g. Eus. P.E. I 7.16, the chapter-title of I 8, and XIV 13.9; Theodor. Graec. aff cur. I 62-4 and passim. See further Wendland (1897) 1074 ff. on Philo Somn. I 22 ff.; Grant (1952) 80 f. on Iren. Adv. haeres. II 28.1-2; Grant (1967) 158 ff.; van den Broek (1983) 104 ff. For Philo see further Mansfeld (1988c) 70 ff. Fricke! (1988) 128 ff. argues that the (Sextan or Skeptical) account at Ref X ~8. which derives from a source different from the source(s) for the Philosophoumena, emphasizes the 'einan­ der widersprechende Lehren' (ibid. 131) of the philosophers. But at X ~8 this angle is not explicit, whereas it is explicit in the Philosophoumena where Fricke! has failed to notice its presence. For X ~ see further infra, Ch. IV 9.