4'.' s PROCEEDINGS OP THE \Mi:i;h \N ACADEMY. 



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

 place, did Dot Tzetzes elsewhere give us a more definite statement of 

 his opinion. On page 2117 of bis prolegomena to the scholia of Aris- 

 tophanes we find these WOrds: t&s 'OfUjptiws Se Kart^alperov npo 8taico(jio)p 



KM ttX(i6v(ov (viavTQiv TlroXf/iatou tov <t>i\a8( \(f}ou kiu rrjt 8iopdtjiiT(<*}s Zrjvo utov 

 (tvvt(6(ik(v anovdij TIfLaicrTpaTot irapii ru>v Ttcradpiov tuvto)v o~o(pioi> ' Iwl Kovkv* 



Aoil, 'OvopClKplTOV T€ \6r)VaioVs Zd>7TlpoV T( '\{,)<Ik\((i1TOU km KpOTiOVtdrOV 'Op(pf'(i>f, 

 OvTO) p(V fV XpOVOlt TOV XlfUTUTTpllTOV TOLS TtO~0~apO~l TOVTOtf <TO(po~lS Ul 'OpTfplKili 



(Tvyypctfp.u reflation ir€pi<p(pup.tvai avvertdquav ku'i ,ii,i\oi tyivuvro. C16nce 



we .see that Tzetzes regarded Pisistratos 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, 19 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 20 

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

 traordinary carelessness. He calls Simonides of Amorgus the son of 

 Ainorgus, makes Naxos a town in Euboea, describes S >rvius 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 pa-s- 

 age already quoted from Tzetzes, Monro 21 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. 



19 Harvard Studies, XII, 104. 



-° Hist, of < !la88. Scholarship, ed. ii, 410. 



" Ud, XI1I-XXIV, ed. i. I >.v. 190J. p. 100. 





