^{page 174 note 1} I do not discuss, as outside the scope of this paper, the view that the Archonship of Comeas was 560/559 or the Archonship of Philoneos 529/8. See on this point Jacoby, F., Marmor Parium, p. 170Google Scholar sq.

^{page 174 note 2} I would for brevity's sake refer the reader to that discussion. Since 1898, apart from cornmentaries and histories, there are special discussions by Blass, in Album gratulat. in honorem H. van Hewerden, pp. 28–31Google Scholar, Oddo, A. in Peisistrato (Palermo, 1903)Google Scholar.

^{page 175 note 1} See Pomtow, , Rh. Mus. LI. (1896), p. 565Google Scholar.

^{page 175 note 2} In Ath. Pol. 12 Aristotle writes, Δαμασας α;ρεθες ᾰρϰων ἔτη δύο κα δύο μνας ρξεν, but I suggest that the two months is a deduction, and possibly a legitimate one, from the fact that the archon list showed 10 archons ruling the rest of the year of Damasias, and thence (if a month is assigned to each archon) the sum 12 months – 10 months = 2 months. Aristotle and the Atthis could hardly have had means of making such a calculation for Peisistratus.

^{page 175 note 3} Blass follows Bauer in reading ταὐτην (i.e. τἠν πρὡτην κατστασιν for ταύτην in 14 § 4 but even so he is not able to leave the dates unchanged. And the reading ταύτην for ταûτα is refuted by Pomtow (op. cit., pp. 565–8).

^{page 175 note 4} That interpolations in this sense do occur in Ath.Pol. can hardly be doubted. Such an interpolation is the notorious Chapter IV., the Draconian Constitution, for it is almost inconceivable that anyone who had already written Chapter IV. should have gone on to write the chapters which follow. In 7 § 3 we read of Solon, τιμματι διεῖλεν ες τέτταρα τέλη, καθάπερ διᾑρητο κα ξενϒτην, ες ες πεντακοσιοέδιμνον κα ππέα κα ξενϒτην κα θ⋯τα. Here it seems clear that the words καθάπερ διᾑρητο κα πρότερον are an interpolation in the above sense of the word. For surely no Greek who meant from the start to say that Solon maintained the existing division into four property classes would begin with the words τιμήματι διεῖλεν ες τέτταρα τέλη.

There are also widely separated passages in which Aristotle puts down what seems to be inconsistent statements. For instance, his statement in 22. 5. ο δ πρότεροι πάντες σαν αρετο (i.e. ο ᾰρϰοντες), seems inconsistent with his statement about Solon in 8. I, τς δ ρϰς ποησε κληρωτς κ προκτων. The phrase in 25. 2 about Ephialtes, τς βονλς (i.e. the Aeropagus) ãπαντα περιελετο τ πθετα, seems inconsistent with Aristotle's own account of the great antiquity of the political functions of the Areopagus.

^{page 176 note 1} Philogicstic Obezrenie X (1896), pp. 119–123Google Scholar. I am indebted to Dr. M. Cary for an abstract of this paper, which is in Russian.

^{page 176 note 2} Unger, , Neue Jahrb. Phil., 1883, p. 383Google Scholar sq., would read δι ἒτεος (instead of δι ἒτεος ), but his Herodotus' account demands a longer interval of time. See Töppfer, , Quaestioncs Pisistrateae, p. 129Google Scholar, n. 3.

^{page 177 note 1} Beloch, op. cit., p. 290.

^{page 178 note 1} I deal later with Polyaenus I. 21, where the Phye story is apparently connected with the battle of Pallene.

^{page 179 note 1} It may be that there is a parallel case in c. 7 § 3, and that the words καθάπερ διᾐρητο κα πρότερον are a corrective note by Aristotle which appears in a sentence which was first written in the opposite sense.

^{page 180 note 1} δς ϒρ ἒΦνϒε Πεισστρατος τνραννν. A. Oddo, op. cit., p. 23, suggests that in this passage the length of Peisistratus' tyranny and of Hippias¹ tyranny have been reversed.

^{page 180 note 2} It is possible to argue that the Atthid tradition conceived of Peisistratus as in exile in the year of the burning of the temple at Delphi (548 B.C.) if the text of the Schol. to Pindar VII. 9 is sound. The Scholion reads in Drachmann's text: λέϒεται ὅτι τύν Πνθικòν ναòν μπρησθντα ὥς τινές Φαριν ύπ τν Πεισιστρατιỡν ο 'Αλκμαιωνδαι Φνϒαδενθέντες ύπ' αύτν ύπέσϰοντο νοικοδομσαι κα δεξάμενοι ϰρήμαϒα κα σνναϒαϒόντες δύναμιν ὐθεντο τοῖς Πεισιστςτεαις κα νικήσαντες μετ' εύϰαριστηρων πλειόνων νῳκοδόμησαν τῷ θεῷ τò τέμενος ὠ ςς Φιλόϰορος (F. H. G. I., p. 395) στορε ῖ. B. omits τ ινές in ς τ;ινéς Φασιν. Boeckh and (see the discussion in Rh. Mus. LI., p. 330, n. 1) emend the first sentence in various ways. Professor Bury suggests, most attractively, to read έπ τν Πεισιστρατιδν for ύπ τν Πεισιστρατιδν. I am inclined, though hesitatingly, to believe the text is sound, and, if so, it seems to imply that the Peisistratids were not engaged in ruling at Athens when the fire took place. But the deduction is uncertain, and it is equally uncertain if the scholiast has rightly represented what stood in Philochorus, so it seems safer this piece of evidence out of account.

^{page 180 note 3} See for details Melber, , Über die Quellen und den Wert der Strategensammlung Polyäns, Jahrb. f. klass. Philol., Suppl. 14, pp. 430–31Google Scholar.

^{page 181 note 1} ProfessorUre, , Origin of Tyranny, pp. 51–61Google Scholar, would account for the Phye story by supposing that it grew out of a remark made by the tyrant's enemies about his silver drachmae. I find it less of a strain to believe that what Herodotus describes did occur.