Historical Dissertation on Abaris

the first fruits of all crops, which they sent from all sides to the Athenians; at which time they say that Baris the Hyperborean, having come to Greece, served Apollo, and thus wrote the oracles that are now called the Barides. Josephus Scaliger $(η)$ thinks this passage needs some emendation, and instead of Βάριν Baris and Βάριδας Barides, he reads Ἄβαριν Abaris and Ἀβαρίδας Abarides. Let Proclus on the Timaeus of Plato $(θ)$ follow the Greek interpreter of Aristophanes, who, while making mention of a certain discourse which, in the opinion of some, Pythagoras wrote to Abaris, calls him Ἄβαρον Abarus, using these words: "And in addition to these, Pythagoras shows in the discourse to Abarus that the eye is analogous to fire." Leo Allatius $(ι)$ argues most vehemently not only that this passage is correct, but that this writing is a genuine offspring of Pythagoras, and he adds at the same time that this discourse written by Pythagoras to Abaris is also frequently mentioned by ancient writers. The most famous man Gottfridus Olearius $(κ)$ chose for himself the opposite side of this opinion, saying: "We find no one among the ancients named Abarus with whom Pythagoras had any business." "Therefore," he says, "it should be read Ἄβαριν Abaris; there is almost no doubt for us." This is also what Valesius $(λ)$ observed. Furthermore, the most famous man Gottfridus Olearius asserts in the cited place that this discourse of Pythagoras to Abaris nowhere exists, nor has it ever existed. "But," he says, "one must return to Allatius and Proclus, who, unless we resist, will foist this discourse of Pythagoras onto Abaris." Therefore, it is perfectly certain that none of the ancients except Proclus mentions this discourse of Pythagoras. But is it not dangerous to accept it as a genuine offspring of Pythagoras on the authority of Proclus alone? I add that not even from Proclus's words can an irrefragable testimony be derived that such a writing ever existed. For what if we understand Proclus to be speaking of that lengthy conversation of Pythagoras with Abaris, which Iamblichus $(μ)$ has described for us extensively and clearly in two places, and of the λόγοις discourses exchanged back and forth in it, concerning which