NEWHALL. — PISISTRATUS AND HOMER. 499 



Let us now briefly consider references to any of these four associates 

 of Pisistratus in literature earlier than the time of Tzetzes. In Herod- 

 otus (VII, 6) these words are applied to Onomacritus : Mpa 'Adrjvalou 



Xprjo-poXoyov re Ka\ Siaderrju xP^o-pcov ™ v Movo-aiov . . . (£r]\a6r) yap ino 

 'lmrdpxov roil Yleiaio-Tpdrov 6 'OvopaKpiros e£ 'Adr)V€<oi>. As a contemporary 



of Hipparchus, so, without doubt, he was also a contemporary of Pi- 

 sistratus. Thus Herodotus vouches for the chronology of Tzetzes so 

 far as Onomacritus is concerned. But we must admit that in all 

 probability the connection of Onomacritus with Pisistratus in the 

 Homeric collection was unknown to Herodotus ; hence his silence in 

 this place. The only other of these four men to whom I have been 

 able to find a reference in an ancient author is Orpheus, — not the great 

 Orpheus, but one of Croton, who is referred to by Suidas (p. 1176), 

 under the words 'Opfavs KpoT^viar^ in the following manner : inonoios, 



bv Ylfia-io-Tparco avvelvai ra> Tvpavvco 'Ao-KkrjTria<jT}s (prjalv Iv tco sktco /3t/3X/o) tu>v 



rpappariKcov. This writer Asclepiades was, according to Sandys (p. 160), 

 a native of Myrleia in Bithynia, and was born at some period between 

 130 and 180 b. c. As Orpheus was an epic poet and associated with 

 the tyrant Pisistratus, according to Asclepiades, I think we are justi- 

 fied in inferring that the connection was doubtless of a literary nature. 

 This fact, of course, is not enough to vindicate the whole story of 

 Tzetzes, but it shows that in the case of at least one of these four men, 

 his connection with Pisistratus was known even before the beginning 

 of our era, and that in this one regard the so-called fabrication of 

 Tzetzes shows a remarkable coincidence with the truth. 



In the commentary of Eustathius on the Iliad and Odyssey, written 

 about the year 117"> of our era, and shortly after the time of Tzetzes, 

 are found two different accounts of the Pisistratean collection, obviously 

 drawn from different sources. In the first, we are surprised to find 

 him giving credence to the story we have met before of the Pisistratean 

 school dominated by Aristarchus and Zenodotus. In the second, Pi- 

 sistratus himself is mentioned as sole author of a probable recension. 

 The passages are as follows, first from his commentary to the first book 



Of the Iliad (p. 5, 1. 28) : ol S<r trvvdepevoi Ta{rrt]v (i. e. 'iXtaSa), kcit eiriTayfjv, 

 £)S (pao-i, Yltio-io-Tparov tov tvv ' Adrjvatiov Tvpdvvov, ypapp.aTiKo\ Ka\ diopdaxrapfvat 

 Kara t6 eKeivots apeo~Kov, bv Kopvcpalot ' Apio-rapxos Ka\ per tKelvov ZrjpoSoros 8ia 

 to fmpr]Kes kui 6We£iVr?roi> <al hiaroZro irpoaKopes Karerepov avro ds jroXXa. 



This undoubtedly refers to a Pisistratean collection, but not one in 

 which Pisistratus took a personal part. The second of these passages 

 (Vol. II, p. 309, 1. 17) is identical in meaning with the Townley scho- 

 lion already quoted, and almost identical in form. The source of both 



is doubtless the Same : (Jmo-1 8e ol iraXatoi rfv pa^Biau ravr^u vfi 'Opwov 



