NEWIIALL. — PISISTRATUS AND HOMER. 497 



By the use of the expression Ino noWav Suidas rather implies different 

 collections separated by considerable lapses of time, so that it seems to 

 me very possible that, as Lachmann ^^ suggests, he may have misin- 

 terpreted his sources, misunderstanding a reference to the different 

 collectors of the Pisistratean school as an allusion to compilers among 

 the predecessors of Pisistratus. 



Coming now to Tzetzes, a commentator of the twelfth century, we 

 find that at one time in his life he believed in a collection of Homer 

 by a Pisistratean school of seventy-two, though, as will appear later, 

 he subsequently rejected this theory, expressing the greatest disgust 

 with Heliodorus,^^ whom he had used as his authority. His first 

 belief he expresses in the following words : ^'^ Ufia-laTpaTos 8e 6 (piXoXoya- 



TOTOs, iv )(p6vois Tov 'S.oXdiuos rvpavvTjcras if Toii Adfjvaiv, KTjpvyfj.a f^fKTjpv^e rov 

 fXOvra eTTT] 'OpTjpov., dnonopi^ecv avTa npos avTov, Koi eKaarov enovs ;(puo-oCi' 

 dvTicpopTL^eadai. vopicrpa. ovtco Se avvayeipas avrd, e^8opr]KOVTa kol 8vo ypappa- 

 TiKo'is fvl (KacTTO} eVeScoKe /car Idiav TedecopiKevai Koi uvvdeivaL avrd ' cKelvos 8e 

 TT]V ivos €<daTov avTojv avvOecnv aTTfypa(f)fTO. vcrrepov oe opov Trdiras avpuyayav 

 irapaKKrjcrecn, peydXais re Scopeais eKeivovs de^ioiadpevos, vnedfi^t rfju diroypacpT^v 

 TTis ej/6s iKauTov crvvdfiKrjs, koi ij^icocrev avTovs (fitXaXrjBaii koi dcpiXe^dpcos dne'iv, 

 oTov apa elr] KpeiTTcov fj (Tvudecrii ' Koi Travres ttjv Apiardp^ov Kcil Ztjvod .tov vnep- 

 f^€KpLvav. fK dveiv 8e TrdXn/, ttjv 'Apia-Tdp^ftov, Ka6 r]v vvv to Traphv tov 'Oprjpov 



^ijiXtov (TvvTideiTai. Evidently, at some later time, Tzetzes got new light 

 on this subject, and realizing the absurdity of making the Alexandrian 

 Aristarchus and Zenodotus the contemporaries of Pisistratus, and boil- 

 ing with indignation when he reflected how he had been taken in, thus 

 expressed his new belief, prefacing it with a brief note in which he 

 makes poor Heliodorus the scapegoat of his disgust by the amusing 

 epithet of opprobrium Tw /3S6Xvp(a. The passage runs thus: Ueiadfls^^ 



'HXtoScopo) TO) j38eXvpa) einov crvvQelvai tov Oprjpop €n\ IletcrtoTparou e^doprjKovTa 

 bvo crocpoiis, u>v e^8oprjK0VTa 8vo dvai Ka\ tov Zr]v68oTov koi tov 'Apta-Tap^ov. 

 KaiToi T f aa d pcov dvdpav «Vt UeicncrTpdTov avvQiVTOiV tov "Oprjpov. oiTives 

 flcTLV ovToi ' imKoyKvXos. OvopdKpiTos AOrjvdlos, Zainvpos MpaKXed^TTjs Koi 



'Opcfxiis KpoTavidTTjs. This last statement I have found in no author 

 before Tzetzes, so that I am at a loss to know his authority. In this 

 passage the expression enl Ueta-iaTpdTov could be interpreted as meaning 



18 Betrachtung ii. Homers Ilias, Berlin, 18-17, p. 32. 



IS This fact serves to strengthen my belief that Heliodorus was the composer 

 of the cited scholion to Dionysius Thrax, since there he expounds at length the 

 story of the school of seventy-two. 



" Exegesis to Iliad, ed. G. Hermann. Leip., 1812, p. 45, 1. 27. 



" See Ritschl's Opuscula, I, 205, which contain Tzetzes' Prolegomena to the 

 scholia of Aristophanes. The word printed as iniKSyKvXos has been variously 

 emended, but the MSS. are hopelessly defective at this point. 



VOL. XLIII. — 32 



