We have not even, as yet, the corroborative evidence of any other Greek inscriptions of the seventh or eighth centuries B.C. Till some such records, or fragments of such records, are found, we are not entitled to assume that the Greeks began to use writing upon stone for any records at such a date as 776 B.C. That great storehouse of old civilization, the Acropolis of Athens, has yielded us nothing of the kind; and even if we admit that the annual archons were noted down since 683 B.C. (which is far from certain), is not the further step to nearly a century earlier completely unwarrantable?
I have reserved till now a passage in Aristotle's fragments (594) on the Olympian festival, which may help the still unconvinced reader to estimate the value of his opinion, on the authenticity of the Register. Aristotle is commonly spoken of as having made critical researches upon this question: here is _the only specimen_ left to us:--
'The order of the festivals, as Aristotle makes out the list, is: first, the _Eleusinia_ in honour of the fruit of Demeter; second, the _Panathenæa_ to commemorate the slaying of the giant Aster by Athene; third, that which Danaos established at Argos at the marriage of his daughters; fourth, that of Lykaon in Arcadia, and called _Lykæa_; fifth, that in Iolkos ordained by Akastos for his father Pelias; sixth, that ordained by Sisyphos (_Isthmian?_) in honour of Melikertes: seventh, the _Olympian_, ordained by Herakles in honour of Pelops; eighth, that at Nemea, which the Seven against Thebes established in honour of Archemorus; ninth, that at Troy, which Achilles celebrated for Patroklos; tenth, the _Pythian_, which the Amphiktyons established to commemorate the death of the Python. This is the order which Aristotle, who composed the treatise called +Peploi+, set out of the ancient festivals and games.'
This quotation is from a scholiast to Aristides, who is not the only grammarian who refers to the +Peploi+: there seems no reason to question the authenticity of the reference to this book as the work of Aristotle. It seems to be on the strength of these _Peploi_, with its only extract now cited, that modern historians have claimed the authority of the great critic for the Olympian Register! Was there ever so strange an inference? Is this indeed the _wissenschaftliche Bearbeitung_ which was begun by Hippias of Elis? Any calm critic free of prejudice will rather conclude from it that on questions of early chronology and mythical history Aristotle was a firm believer in legend, and that he understood his duty to be that of a classifier and arranger of these stories rather than that of a destructive critic. It is but another case of acquiescence in a sceptic, such as I have described in the text above. This being Aristotle's attitude as regards the foundation of the feast, his authority as to the beginning of the Register would be probably worthless. But as a matter of fact we know nothing about it.