In the next century Ephorus wrote in his earlier books concerning the mythical founding of the festival, but we have nothing quoted from him at all like the history set down by Pausanias. It is nevertheless about this time that the newer and more precise account came into vogue, for Timæus, the younger contemporary of Ephorus, evidently knew and valued the register. Its origin in literature would have remained a mystery but for the solitary remark of Plutarch. At the opening of his _Life of Numa_, in commenting on the difficulty of fixing early dates, he says: [Greek: tous men oun chronous exakribôsai chalepon esti, kai malista tous ek tôn Olympionikôn anagomenous, hôn tên anagraphên opse phasin Hippian ekdounai ton Êleion, ap' oudenos hormômenon anankaiou pros pistin.] What does this mean? Does it mean that Hippias first _published_ or edited in a literary form the register, or does it mean that he _both compiled and edited_ it? The former is the implied opinion of the learned. 'Dieser Zeit,' says E. Curtius, _Hist._ i. 494 (_viz._ 'der Mitte des achten Jahrhunderts'), 'gehören ja auch die Listen derer an, welche in den Nationalspielen gesiegt'; and in the note on this at the end of the volume, he indicates, together with the [Greek: anagraphai] of the Argive priestesses, which Hellanicus published, two passages in Pausanias, and adds: 'wissenschaftlich bearbeitet zuerst von Hippias dem Eleer, dann von Philochorus in seinen [Greek: Olympiades].' Now of the latter work we know nothing more than the name; of the former nothing but the passage just cited from Plutarch. Does it justify Ernst Curtius' _wissenschaftlich bearbeitet_? Or does our other knowledge of Hippias justify it? The pictures of him drawn in the Platonic dialogues called after his name, and in Philostratus, though perhaps exaggerated, make him a vain but clever polymath, able to practise all trades, and exhibit in all kinds of knowledge. We should not expect anything 'wissenschaftlich' from him. Indeed, in this case there was room for either a great deal of science, or for none. If there was really an authentic list at Olympia, Hippias need only have copied it. But is this consistent with Plutarch's statement? Far from it.