508 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



is the account of Dieuchidas which, we must remember, is quoted at 

 second hand, and contains those words, juaXAoi/ e'^wno-ei' ktX, which seem 

 too vague and doubtful in their significance to be given very much 

 weight. The only account, therefore, which conflicts with the suppo- 

 sition of a Pisistratean edition is contained in the pseudo-Plato. This 

 story I hesitate to reject hastily because of its antiquity. But yet 

 there are several facts in connection with it which we must face: 

 first, the author is doubtful, practically unknown ; second, the story 

 is found nowhere else except in Aelian, so far as I can discover ; third, 

 it is practically contradictory to the statements I have quoted about 

 Lycurgus, to say nothing of the accounts of Pisistratus,*^ which are 

 based on good authority. How such a plausible story, if true, could 

 have been so nearly forgotten, or how so disregarded by subsequent 

 writers, had the pseudo-Plato possessed a good reputation for histor- 

 ical accuracy, is past understanding. Very plausible is the supposition 

 that it may have been a confusion of two or more stories. This opin- 

 ion is favored by Flach when he writes (p. 21) : " The author of pseudo- 

 Plato was not reliable in comparison with Dieuchidas,"*^ he makes 

 noticeable historical blunders, and was probably lightly recording some 

 local tradition. This tradition arose from an analogy with Solon and 

 from the fact that Hipparchus was a patron of literature, as shown by 

 his calling over Anacreon from Samos in 522 b c, after the death of 

 Polycrates." On the whole I am forced to admit this rather plausible 

 explanation of the practically unique account in the pseudo-Plato. 



Finally, then, what inference are we justified in deducing with 

 regard to the literary activity of Pisistratus in connection with the 

 Homeric poems 1 We must endeavor to avoid any conclusions which, 

 however plausible, are not fully justified by our evidence. For ex- 

 ample, Monro says (p. 406) : " The Pisistratean edition is excluded by 

 the account adopted in the pseudo-Platonic Hipparchus, which leaves 

 no room for a collection of Homeric verses." But it is not just that 

 the authority of this one anonymous writing should outweigh all other 

 passages which testify to a collection of Homeric poems by Pisistratus, 

 and are drawn from such reliable sources as Cicero, Aelian, Pausanias, 

 and the scholia of our second best manuscript. Neither can I agree 



*2 The only way in which I can reconcile this with the accounts about Pisis- 

 tratus is by supposing that Hipparchus introduced the Homeric poems into Greece 

 a good many years prior to the death of Pisistratus his father. But this suppo- 

 sition seems rather improbable. 



*3 Flach gives no credence to the stories about Pisistratus, but believes in the 

 greater Homeric activity of Solon. Hence the mention of Dieuchidas, who says 

 'ZoKwv fxaWov f<paiTL(Tev kt\. 



