Cp. Thuc. I. 20; VI. 54 on the inaccurate accounts of the Peisistratids prevalent in Athens in the historian’s own days. Footnote 175: On the way that Aristotle’s ideas often colour the facts he quotes see Muretus, _Var. Lect._ I. 14; Koehler, _Sitzungsb. Preuss. Akad._ 1892, p. 505; Endt, _Wien. Stud._ XXIV. (1901), pp. 50–51, quoted Porzio, _Cipselidi_, p. 244. On the general dubiousness of fifth and fourth century explanations of seventh and sixth century motives, see Macan on the _Athenaion Politeia_ in _J.H.S._ XII. pp. 34 f. Footnote 176: Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.) 1313_a_. Footnote 177: Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.) 1315_b_. Footnote 178: Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_ (Eng. trans.), III. p. 333. Footnote 179: Cp. Dion. Hal. VII. 1, on the statement in his oldest authorities that Dionysius sent corn to Rome in the time of Spurius Cassius (492 B.C.). The name Dionysius appears here a good half century before his birth, doubtless as the Sicilian tyrant _par excellence_. Footnote 180: Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. ii. p. 295, is surely underestimating the value of Thucydides’ express statements about the Peisistratids when he calls them “merely oral traditions about the relations of a family that had been expelled from Athens 100 years before.” This way of putting it hardly suggests that less than 20 years may have separated the death of Hippias from the birth of Thucydides, and that the tyrant’s family was still sufficiently flourishing at the end of the Peloponnesian war to be excluded from the amnesty that restored Thucydides to Athens (Didymus _ap._ Marcellin. _Vit. Thuc._ 32). Footnote 181: See also chapter III, p. 69. Footnote 182: Beloch, _Rhein. Mus._ L. (1895), p. 252, n. 1, puts Cylon’s attempt into the time between Solon and Peisistratus, De Sanctis, _Atthis_^2, pp. 280 f., into the time of Peisistratus’ exile; O. Seeck, _Klio_, IV. pp. 318 f., puts it at earliest early in the career of Peisistratus; Costanzi, _Riv. d. Stor. Ant._ V. pp. 518–19, about 570 B.C.; so also Lenschau _ap._ Bursian, _Jahresbericht_ 176 (1918), p. 190. But see _e.g._ Ledl, _Stud. z. d. ält. ath. Verfassungsges._ pp. 77 f. Footnote 183: Thuc. I. 126. Footnote 184: Plut. _Solon_, 24. Footnote 185: Plut. _Solon_, 2; cp. Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 6, where Solon’s enemies accuse him of (dishonest) financial speculations. Aristotle dismisses the charge. Footnote 186: Hdt. I. 59; Plut., _Solon_, 13, _Amat._ 18, _Praecept._ 10 (_Moral._ 763, 805), imagines this third party as existing at the time of Solon’s reforms: but his account is inconsistent in itself and contradicts Hdt. See Sandys, _Ath. Pol._^2 p. 55, Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 (1895), II. p. 302, n. 2, following Diels, _Abh. Berl. Akad._ 1885, p. 20, and Landwehr, _Philol._ Suppl. V. (1889), p. 155. Footnote 187: