PBOCEEDINGfi IF nir. IMBBIi \N \< UDEMT. 



is tin 1 account of Dieuohidas which, we must remember, is quoted at 



second hand, and contains those words, /iuXXoi/ (<f>wTi<T(i> »crX, which seem 

 too vague and doubtful in their significance to be given very much 

 weight The only account, therefore, which conflicts with the suppo- 

 sition of a Pisistratean edition is contained in the pseudo-Plato. This 



story I hesitate to reject hastily because of its antiquity. But yet 

 there are several facts in connection with it which we must l 

 first, the author is doubtful, practically unknown; second, the story 

 is found nowhere else except in Aelian, so far as 1 can discover ; third, 

 it is practically contradictory to the statements 1 have quoted ab 

 Lycurgus, to say nothing of the accounts of Pisistratus, 42 which are 

 based on good authority. How such a plausible story, if true, could 

 have been so nearly forgotten, or how so disregarded by subsequent 

 writers, had the pseudo-Plato possessed a good reputation for histor- 

 ical accuracy, is past understanding. Very plausible is the supposition 

 that it may have been a confusion of two or more stories. This opin- 

 ion is favored by Flach when he writes (p. 21) : " The author of pseudo- 

 Plato was not reliable in comparison with Dieuchidas, 43 he makes 

 noticeable historical blunders, and was probably lightly recording some 

 local tradition. This tradition arose from an analogy with Solon and 

 from the fact that Hipparchus was a patron of literature, as shown by 

 his calling over Anacreon from Samos in .">■_>•_' i; a, after the death of 

 Polycrates." On the whole I am forced to admit this rather plausible 

 explanation of the practically unique account in the pseudo-Plato. 



Finally, then, what inference are we justified in deducing with 

 regard to the literary activity of Pisistratus in connection with the 

 Homeric poems? We must endeavor to avoid any conclusions which, 

 however plausible, are not fully justified by our evidence. For ex- 

 ample, Monro says (p. 406) : "The Pisistratean edition is excluded by 

 the account adopted in the pseudo-Platonic Hipparchus, which leaves 

 no room for a collection of Homeric verses."' But it is not just that 

 the authority of this one anonymous writing should outweigh all other 

 passages which testify to a collection of Homeric poems by 1'isistratus, 

 and are drawn from such reliable sources as Cicero, Aelian, Pausanias, 

 and the scholia of our second best manuscript. Neither can I agree 



* 2 The only way in which I can reconcile this with the accounts about Pit 

 tram- is by supposing thai Hipparchus introduced the Homeric poems into Greece 

 a good many years prior to the death of Pisistratus liis father. But this suppo- 

 sition seems rather improbable. 



43 Flach gives no credence to the Btories about Pisistratus, bul believes in the 

 greater Homeric activity of Solon. Hence the mention of Dieuchidas, who says 



So'Au)*' fiiiWov (<pwTtfftv ktK. 



