Historical Disputation on Abaris

Bishop William Lloyd original: "Guilielmus Lloydius" (α) affirms that Pythagoras was born in the last year of the 43rd Olympiad. And the most learned Richard Bentley original: "Richardus Bentlejus" (α) asserts that Pythagoras lived during the times of Cyrus, and in his Disputation on the Epistles of Phalaris he assents to the opinion of William Lloyd, determining with him that Pythagoras was born in the 43rd Olympiad. This he also confirms in the very learned Apology of this disputation against the Most Illustrious Count Charles Boyle original: "Carolus Boylius" (β). The most distinguished Henry Dodwell original: "Heinricus Dodwellus" (γ) defends the contrary position, saying that Pythagoras was born in the last year of the 52nd Olympiad. Edward Simson original: "Eduardus Simsonius" (δ) does not recede so far from his opinion, reporting that Pythagoras was born in the 53rd Olympiad. Clement of Alexandria original: "Clemens Alexandrinus" (ε) also seems to agree with these, affirming that he flourished in the 62nd Olympiad: Pythagoras, he says, is found to be in the time of the tyrant Polycrates, about the 62nd Olympiad. I also discover that Iamblichus (ζ) approaches this opinion when he says that Pythagoras came into Italy in the 62nd Olympiad. If it is necessary, he says, to record the particulars of what he did and said, one must state that he arrived in Italy at the 62nd Olympiad. Pliny the Elder (η) makes him much older, when he says that Pythagoras discovered the nature of a certain star as early as the 42nd Olympiad: Below the sun, he says, circles the huge star called Venus, wandering in a second movement, and in its very names a rival of the Sun and Moon. For when it precedes and rises before the morning it receives the name Lucifer, as another Sun hastening the day; on the other hand, shining from the setting it is called Vesper, as if extending the light and returning the turn of the Moon. Which nature of it Pythagoras of Samos first discovered about the 42nd Olympiad. I have also said above that there is a great controversy among the most learned men regarding the age of Phalaris. But since I wish, for the sake of brevity, that what I have reported until now be considered only as said in passing, I rightfully omit a review of the various opinions about the age of Phalaris. Especially since the most distinguished Henry Dodwell (ϑ) has already made a sufficiently prolix Dispu-