CHAPTER TWO HIPPOLYTUS AND AETIUS I 3 II 1 The Ionian Diadoche The Pythagorean philosophy (or succession and hairesis) as set out in chs. 2-4 interrupts the order of succession of Thales and his followers (chs. 1 + 6-9 + 10, first sentence). The first words of ch. 6, E>aA.ou 'totvuv 'Ava~tjlavopo<; y{ve'tat &.Kpoa'tft<;, 'Ava~tjlavopo<; Ilpa~uioou MtA.ftcrto<;, are linked up with the first words of ch. 1, A.€yt'tat E>aA.flv 'tOV MtA.ftcrtov .... Anaximander's name is repeated for the sake of emphasis, i.e. to underpin the return to and resumption of the Otaooxil of Thales indi­ cated in ch. 5. The link between the opening words of ch. 6 and ch. 1 is of the same kind as that between the first words of ch. 7, 'Ava~tj.I.EVTJ<; 8€, Kat aino<; rov MtA.ftcrto<;, uio<; Oe Eupucr'tpa'tOU, and the first words of ch. 6. Anaximenes, also from Miletus, is Anaximander's successor. In a similar way, the first words of ch. 8, jlt'ta 'tOU'tOV [scil., Anaximenes] ytvt'tat 'Ava~ay6pa<; 'HYTJcrt~ouA.ou o KA.a~Ojltvto<;, make Anaxagoras the successor of the personage treated in the previous chapter. Next, at the beginning of ch. 9, Archelaus is linked up with Anaxagoras, who has been treated in the previous chapter: 'Apx€A.ao<; 'tO j.I.EV y€vo<; 'A8TJ­ vato<;, uio<; oe 'A1toA.A.ooropou · oi>'to<; ... ojlotro<; 'Aval;ay6p<;t K'tA. In the first sentence of ch. 10, Hippolytus says that the physical philosophy deriving from Thales persisted until Archelaus, whose pupil is Socrates (ft ... cpucrtKil cptA.ocrocp{a &.1to E>aA.TJ'tO<; £ro<; 'Apx€A.aou ottllttve K'tA..). There can indeed be no doubt that Diels' source D2, according to the intimations provided by Hippolytus as to the succession starting with Thales, should include ch. 1, and that a continuous account of the Ionian diadoche is at issue. II 2 Hairesis and Diadoche In the Successions literature, the line Thales-Archelaus constitutes what as a rule is called the Ionian succession; it is this line which in Ref I is interrupted by Hippolytus' insertion of his Pythagorean line. In ps.Plutarch (Aetius) I 3, the correct order of exposition has been pre­ served: I 3.1-7 Thales-Archelaus, I 3.8 Pythagoras (and the Pythago­ reans, cf. D. G. 282a6 _ b1). Hippolytus does not call the succession from HIPPOL YfUS AND AETIUS I 3 21 Thales 'Ionian'; at the beginning of ch. 2, however, where the 'other philosophy' starting with Pythagoras is roughly synchronized with the 'physical philosophy' deriving from and starting with Thales, we have, according to the usual denomination, an explicit reference to the 'Italian philosophy':l qnA.oaoq>ia ... ilv 'haA.t!d,v 7tpomw6peuaav. In ch. 1, Thales is called 'the Milesian'; we shall see presently that in Aetius the designation 'Ionian' succession is explained by means of Thales' Mile­ sian provenance.2 In the surviving accounts of the successions, the dis­ tinction between the Ionian and Italian lines is a standard feature. Ps.Plut. (Aet.) I 3.1, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 provides information much resem­ bling what is to be found in Hippolytus. At I 3.1, D.C. 276a6-ll, Thales is said to have got philosophy going, Kat a1t' at>'tou it 'Irovt!d, atpeat~ 1tp0<Jl1YOPEU811· 3 eyeVOV'to yap 1tAEt<Jtat Otaooxat q>tAO<JOq>ta~. q>tAO<JO­ q>Tjaa~ oe ev AtyU1ttql ~A.8ev ei~ MtAlltov 1tpeaf3utepo~. It is to be noted that here otaooxi) and a'tpeat~ are used indistinguishably, and that both these terms (as in Hippolytus) are synonymous with q>tA.oaoq>ia. Diels argued that D.C. 276a6-ll is an interpolation in the text of Aetius added by ps.Plutarch because (a) there is no parallel in Stobaeus' section on Thales, and (b) (yap) at 276a12 refers back to 276a6-7.4 But (yap) has been inserted by Diels from Stobaeus and psJustin, and he has excluded from the text the ()~5 which in ps.Plutarch makes for a smooth transi­ tion. What is more, a parallel exists. After his description of the archai according to Thales-Anaximander-Anaximenes-Anaxagoras-Ar­ chelaus (exactly the same succession as in Hippolytus), ps.Plutarch continues (I 3. 7): of>tot JlEV o.Ov eq>el;fl~ aA.A.i]A.ot~ tat~ Otaooxat~ y£v6- JltvOt tf)v A,ex8£laav [this refers back to I 3.1] 'Irovt!d,v OUJl1tAllPOU<n q>tA.oaoq>iav a1to ElaA.11to~. Stobaeus (I 10.12, 124.13 ff. =D.C. 280b7 ff.) does not have A.q8e1aav6-as we have noticed, there is in Stobaeus no previous mention of the succession; but after q>tAoaoq>iav, his text con­ tinues with the words: OU'tO) 7tpoaayop£u9£t<Jav 7 8t6tt M tAi]<JtO~ autfj~ Katf]pl;£v avi)p o ElaA.fj~ a1to tf\~ tow 'Irovrov Jllltpo1toA£ro~. In other words, the explanation of the term 'Ionian' philosophy in Stobaeus is the same as in ps.Plutarch, though the wording is not identical. If inter- 1 Cf. von Kienle (1961) 22. 2 At Diog. Laert. I 13, the same explanation for the names of the Ionian and Italian successions are to be found: Thales came from Miletus, Pythagoras for the most part was active in Italy. 3 The same verb as at Ref. I 2.1. 4 D. G. 61. In his edition of the text of Aetius, he put the passage between specially adapted square brackets. 5 Diels is followed by Mau in the Teubneriana of ps.Plutarch (p. 53.16). 6 He also reads brnA.llpoucrt, not O"Uf!7tA. 7 cr. supra, n. 3 and text thereto. .