PYTHAGOREAN WRITINGS. $2$ 



That 'itfW(w&9®* means neither more nor lefs than 

 to write a Timaeus, Jamblichus alfo doubtlefs knew, 

 and he muft have had a poor opinion of his readers, 

 if he intended to explain to them a word fo clear and 

 perfpicuous in itfelf ; he himfelf muft have been rather 

 fanciful if he meant to tell us that it fignified to write 

 a Timaeus out of a Timaeus. Jamblichus therefore 

 does not explain Timon's npotioy pufeiv : but he relates 

 a matter of fact out of Timon. And this partly in his 

 own words, and partly in the words of his voucher. 

 If the verfes of Timon ftill in being even imply no 

 more than that Plato wrote a Timaeus out of another 

 book, yet the relation of Jamblichus fays, that this 

 book was a book of Timaeus ; and that Timon actually 

 mentions this ; for he cites it as an evidence of this 

 account. The words above quoted from Proclus fay 

 exactly the fame thing. They both together fpeak 

 fo determinately and clearly, that nothing fhort either 

 of a new fyftem of hermeneutics, or a logic not yet 

 difcovered, is necerTary for giving them any other in- 

 terpretation. That Gellius, with others, maintain that 

 Plato borrowed his Timaeus from the books of Philo- 

 laus, could only excite any doubt, if the words of the 

 two authors in queftion were lefs plain. But have they 

 rightly underftood the words of Timon ? Does not 

 this very difference in the relation prove that Timon 

 muft have expreffed himfelf ambiguoufly ? If the 

 relation of Gellius be perfectly juft, then indeed this 

 conclusion follows. But now the queftion arifes, how 

 far this may be granted ? In the beginning of the 

 principal piece he fays that Plato bought the three 

 works of Philolaus ; and at the end, that he bought a 



vol. ii. mm pythagoric 



