5J° PYTHAGOREAN WRITINGS. 



pythagoric work, and prepared his Timaeus from it *. 

 He manifeftly hefitates between two oppofite traditions^, 

 like Diogenes Laertius, who in one place afferts that 

 Plato bought certain pythagoric works of Philolaus -f f 

 and in another, that he bought the books of Philo- 

 laus^. Hence it inconteftably follows,, that the ac- 

 count at the beginning of the principal piece is drawn 

 from a fource quite different from that out of which 

 lie took the account at the end; It Hill more plainly 

 appears, that Geliius at fir ft fpeaks of Plato,, then of 

 Ariftotle, and, regardlefs of all natural connection, 

 comes back to Timaeus's account of Plato. The latter 

 is therefore, doubtlefs, an addition made afterwards 

 by Geliius", when the beginning of the principal piece, 

 was already finifhed. From the whole, that at the 

 beginning he fpeaks of three pythagoric books, and, 

 at the end, of one pythagoric book, I draw this con- 

 clufion, that Timon' s words cannot abfolutely be un- 

 derflood of the works of Philolaus. What Geliius, 

 quotes from Timon implies nothing farther than that 

 Plato bought a pythagoric work, and eompofed his 

 Timon from it. Consequently, it cannot thence be 

 concluded, that he underftood Timon's words differ- 

 ently from Jarnblichus and Proclus, or that Timon 

 actually fpoke of a work of Philolaus. 



But, fuppoiing that Geliius had fo underftood Ti- 

 mon, the queftion ftill remains, whether he rightly* 

 nnderftood him ? Two philofophers, who belides un- 



* Airlus Geliius, lib. iii. cap. 17, 

 + D:og. Laert. viii. 84. iii. 9. 

 X Dibg. Laert. viii. 85. 



3 



derftood 



