From the book
Empedocles’ The Testimonia, Volume II
Empedocles of Acragas · Diotimos Editions · 2026
Browse this book’s lexicon →Orientation
At a Glance
- The wordHippolytus is the named witness whose refutation places accounts of Greek philosophy within a religious polemic.
- In this workA 31 illustrates why an extended report cannot be read as a neutral doctrinal inventory.
- In this editionThe edition praises Hippolytus’ argument and contrasts its mapping with modern handbook choices.
- A place to readPresents a sustained account in the setting of a later religious refutation.
Meaning
Hippolytus is the named witness whose refutation places accounts of Greek philosophy within a religious polemic. His explanations may quote earlier poetry and yet redescribe its meaning through concerns of his own work.
Use in the book
A 31 illustrates why an extended report cannot be read as a neutral doctrinal inventory. It connects powers, divine language and the fortunes of souls or daimones within an account designed for a refutation. The reader must identify the degree of mediation rather than either accepting or discarding the whole passage. At A 332 Hippolytus offers reasons for a particular mapping of the names in the root verse. His argument for Aidoneus through the invisibility of air is an ancient interpretation worth explaining in its own right. It does not become Empedocles’ explicit definition merely because its wordplay is persuasive. Nor does agreement between this mapping and other notices establish independent witnesses by counting their names. The lexicon keeps the inherited poetic names, the witness’s mapping and the explanatory argument in distinct view.
Places to read
- A 31 (testimony)Hippolytus, Refutatio I 3 (D. 558). Presents a sustained account in the setting of a later religious refutation.
- A 33 (testimony)2Hippolytus, Refutatio VII 29. Argues for a mapping of the divine root names and supplies an explanation of invisible air.
Translation in this edition
The edition praises Hippolytus’ argument and contrasts its mapping with modern handbook choices. That preference remains the editor’s assessment. The supplied collection supports the existence of incompatible ancient keys, not a settled identification established by a majority vote.