141. Boeckh argued with great learning and skill that all the fragments preserved under the name of Philolaos were genuine; but no one will now go so far as this. The lengthy extract on the soul is given up even by those who maintain the genuineness of the rest.[757] It cannot be said that this position is plausible on the face of it. Boeckh saw there was no ground for supposing that there ever was more than a single work, and he drew the conclusion that we must accept all the remains as genuine or reject all as spurious.[758] As, however, Zeller and Diels still maintain the genuineness of most of the fragments, we cannot ignore them altogether. Arguments based, on the doctrine contained in them would, it is true, present the appearance of a vicious circle at this stage. It is only in connexion with our other evidence that these can be introduced. But there are two serious objections to the fragments which may be mentioned at once. They are sufficiently strong to justify us in refusing to use them till we have ascertained from other sources what doctrines may fairly be attributed to the Pythagoreans of this date. Footnote 757: The passage is given in R. P. 68. For a full discussion of this and the other fragments, see Bywater, “On the Fragments attributed to Philolaus the Pythagorean” (_J. Phil._ i. pp. 21 sqq.). Footnote 758: Boeckh, _Philolaos_, p. 38. Diels (_Vors._ p. 246) distinguishes the _Bakchai_ from the three books Περὶ φύσιος (_ib._ p. 239). As, however, he identifies the latter with the “three books” bought from Philolaos, and regards it as genuine, this does not seriously affect the argument.