Book IV, he tells us that he will deal with the disciples of

Simon and Valentinus3; at that of Book VII, that he will do the same with the Docetaj4; and at that of Book VIII that he will "pass on" to the heresy of Noetus.5 In none of these cases does he more than mention the first of the heresies to be treated of in the succeeding book, which the reader could find out for himself by turning over the page, or rather by casting his eye a little further down the roll.
Again, there are repetitions in our text excusable in a lecturer who does not, if he is wise, expect his hearers to have at their fingers' ends all that he has said in former lectures, and who may even find that he can best root things in their memory by saying them over and over again ; but quite unpardonable in a writer who can refer his readers more profitably to his former statements. Yet, we find our author in Book I giving us the supposed teach- ing of Pythagoras as to the monad being a male member, the dyad a female and so on up to the decad, which is supposed to be perfect.6 This is gone through all over again in Book IV with reference to the art of arithmetic 7 and again in Book VI where it is made a sort of shoeing- horn to the Valentinian heresy.8 The same may be
1 pp. 103, 119; II, pp. 1, 57, 148, 149 infra. 2 p. 66 infra.
3 p. 117 infra. 4 II, p. 97 infra. 5 II, p. 1 16 infra.
6 p. 37 infra. 7 p. 115 infra.
8 II, p. 20. In II, p. 49, it is mentioned in connection with the heresy of Marcus, and on p. 104 the same theory is attributed to the " Egyptians."
16 PHILOSOPHUMENA
said of the " Categories n or accidents of substance which Hippolytus in one place attributes to Pythagoras, but which are identical with those set out by Aristotle in the Organon. He gives them rightly to Aristotle in Book I, but makes them the invention of the Pythagoreans in Book VI only to return them to Aristotle in Book VII.1 Here again is a mistake such as a lecturer might make by a slip of the tongue, but not a writer with any pretensions to care or seriousness.
Beyond this, there is some little direct evidence of a lecture origin for our text. In his comments on the system of Justinus, which he connects with the Ophites, our author says: "Though I have met with many heresies, O beloved, I have met with none viler in evil than this." The word " beloved " is here in the plural, and would be the phrase used by a Greek-speaking person in a lecture to a class or group of disciples or catechumens.2 I do not think there is any instance of its use in a book. In another place he says that his " discourse " has proved useful, not only for refuting heretics, but for combating the prevalent belief in astrology ; 3 and although the word might be employed by other authors with regard to writings, yet it is not likely to have been used in that sense by Hippolytus, who every- where possible refers to his former " books." There is, therefore, a good deal of reason for supposing that some part of this work first saw the light as spoken and not as written words.
What this part is may be difficult to define with great exactness j but there are abundant signs that the work as we have it was not written all at one time. In Book I, the author expresses his intention of assigning every heresy to the speculations of some particular philosopher or philosophic school.4 So far from doing so, however, he only compares Valentinus with Pythagoras and Plato, Basilides with Aristotle, Cerdo and Marcion with Em- pedocles, Hermogenes with Socrates, and Noetus with Heraclitus, leaving all the Ophite teachers, Satornilus,
1 p. 66 ; II, pp. 21, 64 infra.
2 a707T7jTo(, p. 113 and p. 180 infra. It also occurs on p. 125 of Vol. II in the same connection.
3 \6yos, pp. 107 and 120 infra. He uses the word in the same sense on p. 113. * p. 35 infra,
INTRODUCTION 17
Carpocrates, Cerinthus and other founders of schools without a single philosopher attached to them. At the end of Book IV, moreover, he draws attention more than once to certain supposed resemblances in the views linked with the name of Pythagoras, to those underlying the nomen- clature of the Simonian and Valentinian heresies, and concludes with the words that he must proceed to the doctrines of these last.1 Before he does so, however,