I have not ventured to include the words ἔνθα δ’ ἐόντι at the beginning, as the text seems to me too uncertain. See, however, Diels’s interesting note. [Sidenote: The doxographical tradition.] 66. It will be seen that some of these fragments are far from clear, and there are probably not a few of which the meaning will never be recovered. We naturally turn, then, to the doxographers for a clue; but, as ill-luck will have it, they are far less instructive with regard to Herakleitos than we have found them in other cases. We have, in fact, two great difficulties to contend with. The first is the unusual weakness of the doxographical tradition itself. Hippolytos, upon whom we can generally rely for a fairly accurate account of what Theophrastos really said, derived the material for his first four chapters, which treat of Thales, Pythagoras, Herakleitos, and Empedokles, not from the excellent epitome which he afterwards used, but from a biographical compendium,[366] which consisted for the most part of apocryphal anecdotes and apophthegms. It was based, further, on some writer of _Successions_ who regarded Herakleitos and Empedokles as Pythagoreans. They are therefore placed side by side, and their doctrines are hopelessly mixed up together. The link between Herakleitos and the Pythagoreans was Hippasos of Metapontion, in whose system, as we know, fire played an important part. Theophrastos, following Aristotle, had spoken of the two in the same sentence, and this was enough to put the writers of _Successions_ off the track.[367] We are forced, then, to look to the more detailed of the two accounts of the opinions of Herakleitos given in Diogenes,[368] which goes back to the _Vetusta Placita_, and is, fortunately, pretty full and accurate. All our other sources are more or less tainted. Footnote 366: On the source used by Hippolytos in the first four chapters of _Ref._ i. see Diels, _Dox._ p. 145. We must carefully distinguish _Ref._ i. and _Ref._ ix. as sources of information about Herakleitos. The latter book is an attempt to show that the Monarchian heresy of Noetos was derived from Herakleitos instead of from the Gospel, and is a rich mine of Herakleitean fragments. Footnote 367: Arist. _Met._ Α, 3. 984 a 7 (R. P. 56 c): Theophr. _ap._ Simpl. _Phys._ 23, 33 (R. P. 36 c). Footnote 368: For these double accounts see _Dox._ pp. 163 sqq. and Appendix, § 15.