As to the style of the Book it does not differ materially from that of the others, save in one particular. This is the frequent omission of the definite article, which is so frequent as to arouse suspicion that the scribe may have been here translating from a Latin rather than copying from a Greek original.
[2] This is the main reason for supposing that this Book is that called the Labyrinth which Photius says was by the author of the work On the Universe, attributed by the list on the chair to Hippolytus. Cf. Salmon in D.C.B., “Hippolytus Romanus.”
[3] All these were probably described in the missing Books II and III, together with Book IV, supra.
[4] ἀκαλλώπιστος.
[5] Book I only is concerned with the teachings of the Greek philosophers; but Books II and III must, according to the promise in Vol. I, pp. [63], [64], have contained an exposition of the mystic rites and astrological doctrine, and Book IV is entirely taken up with magic and divination. This is confirmed by the statement in Vol. I, p. [119]. Hippolytus must therefore have forgotten this when writing Book X, or at any rate did not have the earlier Books before him.
[6] From here to the end of the section on p. 479 Cr., is a copy from Sextus Empiricus’ work, Adversus Physicos, c. 10. So close is this that we are able by its aid to correct by it the faulty text of Sextus, and vice versâ. Sextus, as a sceptic, was of course as much opposed to the study of nature as Hippolytus, and was therefore only interested in showing the discrepancies among its teachers. But how does this make the quotation from him an “epitome”?
[7] Not mentioned in Book I.
[8] Karsten, VIII, p. 45.
[9] Il., XIV, 201.
[10] Il., VII, 99.