PYTHAGOREAN WRITINGS. 539 



Ariftotle in detecting the fources of his mailer is not 

 fo extremely accurate as to juftify us in drawing confe- 

 quences unfavourable to Timaeus from it. He fays in- 

 deed, that Plato borrowed this and that from the 

 Pythagoreans, but he never names the writings fr6m 

 whence he took it ; as he generally mentions the name 

 of the man, and never that of the work, whofe 

 opinions he endeavours to refute. The fame method is 

 ufually followed alfo by Plutarch and Sextus ; confe- 

 quently, we have no need to be furprifed at their 

 lilence. What, however, is obfervable in this lilence 

 I fhall take notice of in fpeaking of Ocellus, whofe de- 

 fence I have now to undertake. 



Concerning the exiftence of the work of Ocellus 

 there is no teftimony to be produced fo antient as thofe 

 concerning the writings of Timaeus ; but probably the 

 authenticity of them will not therefore be the lefs ap- 

 parent. Gale quotes feveral authors that mention 

 Ocellus * ; but, as moft of them are too modern, or 

 otherwife too liable to fufpicion, I will rather pafs them 

 by entirely, than render a matter already uncertain, 

 frill more fo, by adducing the teftimony of doubtful 

 witneffes. The oldeft author, hitherto known, by 

 whom this work is mentioned, is Philo Judasus, who 

 affirms, that he faw it himfelf -f\ Sextus Empyricus 

 alfo touches upon an opinion of Ocellus, without letting 

 drop the flighteft fufpicion concerning the genuinenefs 

 of this author *. Philo lived in the firft century, con- 



* Gale, opufc. mythol. p. 501. 

 % Sext. Empyr. adv. math. x. 316. 



fequently 



