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£YK<XV 'tOU au1:ou [scil., Pythago­ ras'] <ppovilJla'toc;. One wonders whom Hippolytus had in mind, but it is a definite possibility that he had seen a predecessor of the 'diadoche of Pythagoras' (so the announcement at Iambl. De vit. pyth. p. 4.28; cf. also ibid. p. 4.22, oi. 8ta8e~tXJlEVOt au1:ou 1:ilv <ptA.oao<piav) in Iambl. De vit. pyth. ch. 36, where §§ 265-6 a succession Pythagoras-Aristaeus son of Damo­ phon of Croton-Mnesarchus son of Pythagoras-Boulagoras-Gartu­ das of Croton-Aresas of Leucania-Diodorus of Aspendos is found, and finally a number of Pythagoreans are mentioned who wrote books, viz. Kleinias and Philolaus 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 K<Xt avroVUJlOU<; nvac; 7tOAAouc; d11:oc; yeyovevat). At De vit. pyth. ch. 33, § 241, Iamblichus in general terms speaks of Leucanians, Messapians, Peucetians and Romans as flocking to Pythagoras (cf. Diog. Laert. VIII 14). Accordingly, if Hippo­ 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 <puaeroc; 1:ou 7t<XV'toc; BunouJlEVOt (1 0. 7-8 W. = 63.4 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 1t<XV'to~ cpucrero~- the same formula as inch. 5). To set out all the tenets at issue would involve organizing the contents of a substantial body of literature. So he will limit himself-in chs. 11-16--to the 'top people' (Kopucpa{rov)3 because, as he says, their doctrines provided the spring-board for all subsequent philosophies. Hippolytus' program is clearly formulated. Of the Pytha­ gorean succession, only the more important figures receive treatment, it being unnecessary to account for the others because there is little or no disagreement. The important Ionian succession is to be set out com­ plete because of the disagreement among its members. Of the others, i.e. what turns out to be (mainly) the Eleatic succession, only the top people will be dealt with, because although there is sufficient disagreement among these philosophers as well there are simply too many of them (ch. 10). This program is carried out as planned. Consequently, for the succession from Pythagoras the emphasis is on harmony and for the succession from Thales on disagreement. As to the 'others' to be treated in chs. 11-16, the emphasis again is on the divergencies among their tenets. This introduces a Skeptical colouring. The dissension among the philosophers is a favourite topic in Philo 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. .