Abstract
he eclectic nature of Hippolytus' account of Empedocles' doxai seems clear. Some of his interpretations, notably the distinction between sensible and intelligible worlds, were probably drawn from or influenced by the Platonic tradition. Some of his account, perhaps the greater portion of it, was influenced by the Aristotelian or Peripatetic tradition; some of it seems derived from the Stoics, and even possibly the Homeric allegorists. In any case, the reports cannot always be supported by the extant fragments; in fact, some seem inconsistent with them, e.g. Empedocles on the cosmic conflagration and marriage. But more important, the main purpose of Hippolytus' discussion is to show that the heresy of Marcion and his followers was anticipated by, and many of the tenets borrowed from, Empedocles. In view of these and other considerations to be considered later, it seems unlikely that Hippolytus derived his knowledge of Empedocles from the original poems. He does, of course, seem to know the Katharmoi by title. In VII, 30, 4, questioning the Marcionites, he remarks roijq 'Et7re8ox?cou4 Xov1,ve &8M(a'xV x p others probably belong to On Nature. But Hippolytus' manner of introducing them, e.g. Xe,'ov (Lae 7nw4 (VII, 31, 4) or ?eye troLouov -nva -po7ov (VII, 29, 13), suggests that he was not acquainted with the original poems. There is, for example, little doubt that the account of Empedocles in Bk. I where he is confused with Heraclitus is taken from a poor compendium, including probably the verses of Empedocles quoted by Hippolytus. The account in Bk. VII, however, especially because of the number of quotations, seems to be from another and better source. Diels was probably the first to suggest that Hippolytus' source was a lost work of Plutarch.' He was followed by Gilbert, O'Brien, and
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call