At  the  outset  we  must  premise,  that  whatever
interest  there  may  be  in  following-  out  the  particular
opinions  recorded  as  belonging  to  Pythagoras,  such
a  process  is  quite  incompatible  with  our  plan.  The
greatest  uncertainty  still  exists,  and  must  for  ever
exist,  amongst  scholars,  respecting  the  genuineness
of  those  opinions.  Even  such  as  are  recorded  by
trusty  authorities,  are  always  vaguely  attributed
by  them  to  "  the  Pythagoreans,"  not  to  Pytha
goras.  Modern  criticism  has  clearly  shown  that
the  works  attributed  to  Timaeus  and  Archytas  are
spurious  ;  and  that  the  supposed  treatise  of  Ocellus
Lucanus  on  the  nature  of  The' All  cannot  even  have
been  written  by  a  Pythagorean.  Plato  and  Aris
totle,  the  only  ancient  writers  who  are  to  be  trusted
in  this  matter,  do  not  attribute  any  peculiar  doc
trines  to  Pythagoras.  The  reason?  is  simple.  Pytha
goras  taught  only  in  secret ;  and  never  wrote.
What  he  taught  his  disciples  it  is  impossible  accu
rately  to  learn  from  what  those  disciples  themselves
taught.  His  influence  over  their  minds  was  un
questionably  immense ;  and  this  influence  would
communicate  to  his  school  a  distinctive  tendency,
but  not  one  accordant  doctrine  ;  for  each  scholar
would  carry  out  that  tendency  in  the  direction
which  best  suited  his  tastes  and  powers.*

*  We  assume  this  to  be  the  case ;  but  we  do  not  assume  it
groundless] y.  We  are  guided  by  the  striking  analogy  af
forded  by  the  celebrated  Saint  Simon.  Like  Pythagoras,  the
Frenchman  published  no  complete  account  of  his  system.
