494 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



Lang7 It does show, however, that Diogenes Laertius found a state- 

 ment in Dieuchidas expressive of his belief in some service performed 

 by Pisistratus for Homer. 



So far, the cited passages which attest a mere literary dabbling on 

 the part of Pisistratus have been rather unsatisfactory ; they are, 

 briefly, a reference by Strabo to a mere tradition which ascribed the 

 insertion of a line either to Solon or Pisistratus ; second, the insertion 

 by Pisistratus of another line in another place according to Plutarch, 

 who is quoting from a writer about whose date we know only this, 

 that, appearing in Plutarch, he must have written earlier than the 

 year 80 a. d., which approximately marks the date of Plutarch's ac- 

 tivity ; third and last, the statement of Dieuchidas, as quoted by 

 Diogenes Laertius, saying that Solon did more to elucidate Homer 

 (if that is the best way to translate e<pa)Tiafv) than did Pisistratus. 



Next, let us consider a few passages in authorities of the time of 

 Cicero and later, who make definite statements about what might with 

 fairness be called a Pisistratean edition of Homer. The earliest refer- 

 ence of this sort in any Latin author occurs in, the De Oratore HI, 

 137, where Cicero says with reference to Pisistratus : qui primus 

 Homeri libros, confusos antea, sic disposuisse dicitur ut nunc habemus. 

 The use of the word " dicitur " in this place is significant, showing, as 

 it does, that Cicero is careful not to make the statement on his own 

 authority, but introduces the story as one commonly believed in his 

 own day or as transmitted by previous writers. It is reasonable to 

 suppose that Cicero is indebted for his information on this point either 

 to the Alexandrian scholars, or to some of the philosophers of Greece, 

 or to the rhetoricians of the school of Pergamos, though such a state- 

 ment is of course merely conjectural. 



More definite information about the edition of Pisistratus is pre- 

 served to us in the scholia ^ of the Townley manuscript at the beginning 

 of Book K of the Iliad. It runs thus : <^ao-i ttjv pa'^cpBiav Icj)" 'o^rjpov 



Ihiq TfTd)(6ai Koi fifj eivai fiepos t^s 'iXtaSoj, vtto Se UeiaiaTpaTov reraxdai els 



Tijv iToiT)(Tiv. This scholion is one of our most important bits of evidence 

 and must be carefully considered. First we must note that no literary 

 forgery on the part of Pisistratus is implied, but merely the assigning 

 of a place in the Iliad to a poem which had been separately composed 

 by Homer. Since the insertion of an entire book is a fundamental 

 change to make in any piece of literary work, I think I am justified in 

 considering this passage as pointing in the direction of an entire re- 

 cension of Homer by Pisistratus. The use of the word " ^acrt " in this 



' Homer and his Ape, London, 190G, p. 46. 

 8 Ed. Maass, Ox. 1887, p. 341. 



