502 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



The second life draws its facts from practically the same manuscripts 

 as the preceding, and in the following portion is very similar to it : 



TO. 8e TTOiTifiara avTov to, dXrjd^ (TTTopdhrjv nporepov d86iifva Xleta/o-rparos ^Adrjvalos 

 (TVveTa^ev, ojs hrfkoi to cpepo/jLCvov eniypappa 'Adrjurjatv eniyfypappevov iv et/cdi/t 



aiiToii Tov neto-to-r/jciTou. e'xfi 8e o)8e . . . and then follows the same epigram. 

 Briefly summing up the testimony of such accounts as we may con- 

 sider reliable for an Homeric edition by Pisistratus or Pisistratus and 

 his associates, the result is as follows. The accounts in Cicero, the 

 Townley scholia, Aelian, Suidas, and Eustathius all point to a collec- 

 tion of the poems by Pisistratus alone and unassisted. The accounts 

 in Pausanias, Tzetzes, and, of course, the scholia to Plautus, are the 

 only ones which indicate any kind of a Pisistratean school. I do not 

 think, however, that we ought to consider this as strong evidence that 

 Pisistratus was not assisted by a board of associates in his work of 

 collecting. Naturally if he, a ruler in absolute authority and eager 

 for fame in letters, chose to be the proud supervisor of such a literary 

 undertaking, even though his co-workers were ever so numerous, the 

 edition which was produced would be called by subsequent writers 

 " Pisistratus's Edition " and the " Collection which Pisistratus made," 

 while his helpers would be gradually disregarded, just as we, for in- 

 stance, refer to our Bible as "King James's Version." 



The fact that the story of a collection of Homeric poems by Pisis- 

 tratus, or Pisistratus and certain associates, was known by Cicero and 

 several reputable writers after him is very significant. No one would 

 presume to say that, as in the case of Tzetzes, so also in the case of 

 Cicero, this story is a fabrication. In fact, he himself uses the word 

 "dicitur," which we may translate "we are told." What, then, was 

 his authority and the authority of these subsequent writers 1 It seems 

 at least probable that the Alexandrian School, for instance, must have 

 played a part in handing down the tradition. The most that can be 

 said against this is that neither Aristarchus nor any of his successors 

 in any of their writings which are extant in whole or in part mention 

 the connection of Pisistratus with Homer as a collector or reviser ; but 

 this is obviously an unfair objection because, without doubt, only small 

 portions of all their writings have come down to us. And yet Flach 28 

 derives especial satisfaction from the contemplation of such facts as, 

 for instance, that Aristarchus never so much as implies that the inser- 

 tions into the text of Homer especially compHmentary to the Athenians 

 were found only in the manuscripts that came from Athens, although, 

 if this were the state of things, we should expect him to mention it. 



28 Peisistratus u. seine Lit. Tatigkeit, Tiibingen, 1885, p. 39. 



