498 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY, 



merely that " in the time of Pisistratus " this collection of Homer took 

 place, did not Tzetzes elsewhere give us a more definite statement of 

 his opinion. On page 207 of his prolegomena to the scholia of Aris- 

 tophanes we find these words : ra? 'OnrjpeLOVi 8e KaTe^alperov npo 8iaKoaio)P 

 Koi Trkeioviou eviavrav TiToXefiaiov rod '^iXa8e\(f)ov Koi rrji Biopdcoaecoi Ztjvoootov 

 avvTiOeiKev (TiTovdiJ IleicricrTpaTOi napa tu>v Tecrcrdpcov tovtcov aocficov ' inl Koy/cu- 

 "Kov, ^OvofiaKpiTov re 'Adrjvaiov, Zcorrvpov re 'HpoKXearov koi KpoToovLUTOv 'Op(f)eu>s, 

 OvTco p.€v (V )(p6voLi rov YlfiaLCTTpdrov rolv Teacrapcn tovtoh ao(pols at Ofj,r]piKa.\ 

 (Tvyypa(pai T€p,a)(^!.ois Trfpi(pep6p.fvai a-vufridrjcTav /cat j3i'/iAot eyivovro. Meuce 



we see .that Tzetzes regarded Pisistratas as an active participant in 

 the work of collection, though he was assisted by these four men. 



There can be little doubt, I think, that for these prolegomena he was 

 drawing on the ancient scholia. John Williams White,^^ in speaking 

 of Tzetzes' interlinear notes to the Aves in codex Urbinas, says : "He 

 was writing a brief commentary on the Aves based on the old scholia 

 with additions 'by the editor.' " By some scholars, however, Tzetzes 

 is held in very low esteem as an authority. For example, Sandys ^o 

 says of him: "His inordinate self-esteem is only exceeded by his ex- 

 traordinary carelessness. He calls Simonides of Amorgus the son of 

 Amorgus, makes Naxos a town in Euboea, describes Ssrvius Tullius as 

 ' consul ' and ' emperor ' of Rome, and confounds the Euphrates with 

 the Nile. He is proud of his rapid pen and remarkable memory ; but 

 his memory often plays him false, and he is for the most part dull as a 

 writer and untrustworthy as an authority." With regard to the pass- 

 age already quoted from Tzetzes, Monro ^i writes: " Everything points 

 to the conclusion that the story is a mere fabrication. He does not 

 give his authority, and it can scarcely be imagined that he had access 

 to sources unknown to the generality of Byzantine scholars." But is 

 not this unjustly making light of the character of Tzetzes 1 The worst 

 that Sandys cares to say about him is that he was careless ; but is it 

 carelessness that gives birth to such a circumstantial statement as this ? 

 I cannot see how such a detailed story could have come full-grown like 

 Minerva from the head of any writer unless his fault had been some- 

 thing much more serious than carelessness ; but this no one would say 

 of Tzetzes. I prefer then to follow Mr. White in believing Tzetzes to 

 have based his prolegomena on the old scholia with some additions, 

 and accordingly I think it most probable that for this statement he 

 must have found some authority in the scholia. 



" Harvard Studies, XII, 104. 



20 Hist, of Class. Scholarship, ed. ii, 419. 



21 Od.. XIII-XXIV, ed. i, Ox., 1901, p. 406. 



