NEWHALL. — PISISTRATUS AND HOMER. 497 



By the use of the expression wro ttoAAcG* Suidas rather implies different 

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

 me very possible that, as Lachmann 15 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, 16 whom he had used as his authority. His first 

 belief he expresses in the following words : 17 neio-io-Tparos 8e 6 #tAoAoy<a- 



raros, kv xpovois tov SdXww)? rvpavvTjO-as iv Tali 'Adrjvais, Krjpvypa egacrjpvge tov 

 e^oira tnr] 'Oprjpov, dnoKopi&iv avra irpbs avrov, Kal eKao~TOv enovs xP vo ~°v v 

 avTitpopTifyadai vopitrpa. ovto 8e cruvayeipas avrd, efiSopTjKovTa Kal 8vo ypappa- 

 tiko'is ev\ eKaaTG} (TreSwKe kiit Idiav TfdfcopiKtvai Kal avvdelvat avra ' (Kelvos 8e 

 ttjv ivbs fKacrrov avTuiv avvdecriv dneypcKpero. varepov 8i opov wdvras <rvvuyayo)i> 

 TrapaKXfjaeai, peydXais re ocopeals iicelvovs 8e£ia>o-dpevos, inre8ei£* rf/v dnoypadiriv 

 ttjs fibs ticdoTov (rvvdrjKrjt, Kal T]£ia)a(v avroi/s (piXa'hrjdwt Kal dcptXry^pws' elirelv, 

 orov apa elrj KptiTToiv 17 avvdeo-is ' Kal ndvres ttjv ' ApiaTap^ov Kill Zrjvo8 itov vntp- 

 e£(Kpivav. ik 8vtiv 8e rrdXiv, Ttjv 'Apto-rdpy«oi>, Kad' r)v vvv to irapov tov 'Oprjpov 



PifiXiov awTtOfLTai. 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 t<u ft8e\vpa>. The passage runs thus : n f ladtls 18 



H\io8d>pa> T<a @8e\vpa> enrov avvdelvai tov Oprjpov eTvl Heiaio-rpdrov ZfthoprjKovTa 

 8vo o~o(povs, cov i^8opfjKovTa 8vo eivat Kal tov Ztjv68otov Kal tov ' Apio~Tapxov. 

 Kairoi Teo-crdpw dv8pcov eVi Titiaio-TpaTov o~vvdevTa>v tov " Oprjpov. oirives 

 (laiv ovtoi • i7TLKoyKv\os, 'OvopaKpiros AOrjvalos, Zamvpos YipaKkfooTrjs Kal 



'Op(pevs KpoTavidTt]s. 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 Inl rieio-io-rparou could be interpreted as meaning 



15 Betrachtung ii. Homers Ilias, Berlin, 1847, p. 32. 



16 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. 



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



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

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

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



vol. xliii. — 32 



