Historical Dissertation on Abaris

However, Joseph Scaliger original: "Iosephus Scaliger" (η) believes this passage needs some correction, and instead of Barin Baris and Baridas Barids, he reads Abarin Abaris and Abaridas Abarids. Let the Greek interpreter of Aristophanes be succeeded by Proclus in his commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (θ), who, while mentioning a certain speech which, according to the opinion of some, Pythagoras wrote to Abaris, calls him Abaron Abaris, using these words: "And furthermore, that the eye is analogous to fire, Pythagoras shows in the speech to Abaron." Leo Allatius (ι) most fiercely contends not only that this passage is correct, but also that this writing is the genuine offspring of Pythagoras, and he adds that this speech, written by Pythagoras to Abaris, is mentioned here and there by ancient writers as well. The very famous Mr. Gottfridus Olearius (κ) chose the opposite side of this argument, saying: "We find no one among the ancients, with whom Pythagoras might have had any dealings, called Abarus. Therefore, it is almost certain that Abarin Abaris should be read." This is what Valesius (λ) also observed. Furthermore, the same very famous Mr. Gottfridus Olearius affirms in the cited place that this speech of Pythagoras to Abaris does not exist anywhere, nor did it ever exist. But, he says, "one must return to Allatius and Proclus, who will force upon us a speech of Pythagoras to this Abaris, unless we resist." Therefore, it is absolutely certain that no one among the ancients besides Proclus remembers this speech of Pythagoras. But how dangerous is it to accept it as the genuine offspring of Pythagoras solely on the authority of Proclus? I add that from the words of Proclus, one cannot derive irrefutable testimony that any such writing ever existed. For what if we understand Proclus to be speaking of that long conversation of Pythagoras with Abaris, which Iamblichus (μ) described for us fully and clearly in two places, and the speeches exchanged back and forth in it, about which