Historical Dissertation on Abaris

as a thank-offering, they sent from all sides to the Athenians the first fruits of all their crops, when indeed they say that Baris the Hyperborean, having come as a pilgrim original: "θεωρὸν" to Greece, served Apollo, and thus wrote the oracles which are now called the Barides." Joseph Scaliger original: "(η) In animadu. ad Eusebii Thes. temp. no. 1454. ed. Amstelod. 1658. f." judges that this passage needs some amendment, and instead of Baris and Barides, he reads Abaris and Abarides. Succeeding the Greek interpreter of Aristophanes is Proclus in his commentary on Plato's Timaeus original: "(θ) L. III. p. 141. ed. Basil. 1534. f.", who, while making mention of a certain speech which, according to the opinion of some, Pythagoras wrote to Abaris, calls him Abarus, using these words: "And in addition to these things, that the eye is analogous to fire is shown by Pythagoras in the speech to Abarus." Leo Allatius original: "(ι) In Dialogo paradoxo de Scriptis Socratis, p. 83. qui Dialogus editis ab Allatio 1637. Lutetiae Parisiorum Socratis et Socraticorum epistolis annexus est." contends most fiercely that not only is this passage correct, but that this writing is a genuine product of Pythagoras, and he adds at the same time that this speech written by Pythagoras to Abaris is mentioned everywhere by ancient writers as well. The very famous Gottfridus Olearius original: "(κ) Exercitat. de eod. argum. §. II. Lipsiae 1697. 4." has chosen the side contrary to this opinion: "We find no one among the ancients," he says, "named Abarus, with whom Pythagoras had any dealings. That it should be read 'Abaris,' therefore, we have almost no doubt." This was also observed by Valesius original: "(λ) In not. ad Harpocrat. Lexic. p. 83. ec. Jac. Gronovii. Lugd. Bat. 1696. 4.". Furthermore, the same very famous Gottfridus Olearius affirms in the cited place that this speech of Pythagoras to Abaris nowhere exists nor ever existed. But, he says, "we must return to Allatius and Proclus, who will force upon us, unless we resist, a speech of Pythagoras to this Abaris. It is, therefore, quite certain that no one among the ancients, except Proclus, remembers this speech of Pythagoras. But to accept it as a genuine product of Pythagoras on the authority of Proclus alone: how dangerous is that? I add that from the words of Proclus one cannot derive an 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 original: "(μ) L. I. de Vita Pythagorae c. XIX. & XXII. ed. Jo. Arcerii Theodoreti Heidelb. 1598. 4." described for us fully and clearly in two places, and the words exchanged back and forth in it, about which"