PYTHAGOREAN WRITINGS. 541 



to confute them. But, in regard to Pythagoras and 

 the Pythagoreans, he obferves the profbundefr. lilence ; 

 throughout his works, the name of Pythagoras appears 

 not much more than once, and of the names of the 

 Pythagoreans very few belide that of Timseus. What 

 is more, he never ftyles thefe perfons Pythagoreans. 

 For what reafons he acted thus, is here quite a matter 

 of indifference. And thus therefore Plato's inexplica- 

 ble rllence is explained. 



As little myllerions may the lilence of Ariftotle ap- 

 pear to an attentive obferver. This philofopher, who 

 otherwife always names his adverfary, never quotes the 

 title or the author of the pythagoric books he is refu- 

 ting. He always makes ufe of the indeterminate ex- 

 preffion, fome Pythagoreans, or fome italian philofa- 

 phers, fay this or that. Though afliiredly he was ac- 

 quainted with more than one of them ; lince he marks 

 the variations in their doctrine. The reafon of this may 

 have been what it will : yet thus much is plain from it, 

 that his lilence in regard to Ocellus is by far not fo 

 mylrerious, nor by its myflerioufnefs fo demonstrable, 

 as the abovementioned author pretends. 



In regard to Galen and Plutarch the fame remark 

 holds good ; neither of them ever quotes the writings of 

 other Pythagoreans. 



Hence it follows, that either this lilence in refpecl 

 to Ocellus, proves nothing, or that all the pythagoric 

 fragments now extant are forgeries. To this propolition, 

 lingular as it may appear, our author feems to have no 

 objection. He probably did not conlider, that the tef- 

 timony of Timon^ in regard to Timaeus of Locri, was 



falfe; 



