Scholars and Works

Iulius Pollux
Ὀνομαστικόν (Onomasticon)

A. Generalities

Iulius Pollux (Latin for Ἰούλιος Πολυδεύκης, second half of the 2nd century CE), was a famous grammarian and rhetorician in his time, but his works have not survived in their entirety, with the exception of the lexicon that goes by the name of Onomasticon, as the author calls it in the letter to Commodus in Book 1 (ὀνομαστικὸν μὲν οὖν τῷ βιβλίῳ τὸ ἐπίγραμμα ‘Onomasticon [is] the title [given] to the book’). The extant information on Pollux’s life is scarce: there is only a brief entry in the Suda (π 1951), drawn from the Onomatologus by Hesychius of Miletus (6th century CE), and an account by Philostratus (VS 2.12, 96.2–97.22 Kayser). Pollux is called Ναυκρατίτης ‘of Naucratis’ (in Egypt). According to the Suda, some people playfully (παίζοντες) nicknamed him Ἀρδουέννας σοφιστήν, but the meaning of this location remains obscure, although the Suda also adds the not very illuminating explanation that Arduenna was a city in Phoenicia.

Little is known about the life of the young Pollux, but his father – Philostratus informs us – was well versed in philological studies (τοὺς κριτικοὺς λόγους εἰδότι) and took charge of his education. In Athens, Pollux became a pupil of Hadrian of Tyre, a rhetorician who, in turn, had been a pupil of Herodes Atticus. Later Pollux worked as a teacher in Athens, where, according to Philostratus, not before 178 CE and probably in 180 CE, he received the chair of rhetoric (a not better specified τὸν Ἀθήνησι θρόνον) from Commodus (see Avotins 1975, 320–2). In Philostratus’ account, he achieved this by ‘enchanting’ (θέλξας, in fact not necessarily a positive term) the emperor Commodus with his sweet voice (μελιχρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ, for a similar image, not related to Pollux, see τὸ Ὑμήττιον ἐκεῖνο ἀνοίξας στόμα ‘having opened that Hymettian mouth’ in Luc. Rh.Pr. 11). Naechster (1908, 21–46; followed by e.g. Degani 1995, 521–2; Tosi 1999, 51; Tosi 2007, 5; Zecchini 2007, 17; Conti Bizzarro 2014, 39; Sonnino 2014, 168; Tosi 2022) hypothesised that this coveted task was awarded to Pollux after a competition against the other famous Atticist theorist and rhetorician of the age, PhrynichusPhrynichus Atticista. This assumption, however, has been challenged by Slater (1977, 261), Bussès (2011, 10), and Matthaios (2013, 71–8), among others. Indeed, Naechster’s hypothesis is entirely conjectural, and the reconstruction of the alleged competition between Pollux and Phrynichus is based solely on the fact that the two do not fully agree in their respective approaches to Atticism; besides, the ancient sources provide no evidence to support this assumption. Pollux is generally regarded as a moderate representative of Atticism, his approach being more descriptive and less prescriptive than that of Phrynichus (see Tosi 1999; Matthaios 2015, 295–6; Sections E. Canon and F. Evaluative terminology).

Pollux died at the age of 58, and his son, as Philostratus again informs us, was legitimate but ἀπαίδευτος (‘uneducated’, probably not following in his father’s footsteps). The Suda preserves the titles of some of Pollux’s works (for the list ends with καὶ ἕτερα, ‘and others’), all of which are lost apart from the Onomasticon: Διαλέξεις ἤτοι λαλιαί (Discussions or Common Talks), Μελέται (Declamations), Εἰς Κόμμοδον Καίσαρα ἐπιθαλάμιον (Epithalamium to the Caesar Commodus), Ῥωμαϊκὸς λόγος (Roman Oration), Κατὰ Σωκράτους (Against Socrates), Κατὰ Σινωπέων (Against the Citizens of Sinope), Πανελλήνιον (Panhellenic Oration), Ἀρκαδικόν (Arcadian Oration), and Σαλπιγκτὴς ἢ ἀγὼν μουσικός (Trumpeter or Musical Contest). The topic of the last of these works, trumpets and contests, is reminiscent of a digression in the Onomasticon (4.86–90): in order to distract his high-born student from the boredom of his grammatical studies, Pollux begins one of his digressions, telling the story of an actor called Hermon and the reason why the trumpet ‘is played at every call of the contestants’. Even if on a purely conjectural basis, one may wonder whether such an affinity is coincidental, or whether this was a topic that Pollux was particularly fond of, or whether he was perhaps recycling or rewriting his own material in this section of the Onomasticon. The last source on Pollux is the scholia to LucianLucian, his contemporary. The introduction to the Rhetorum praeceptor (174.12–175.3 Rabe) explicitly suggests that Lucian’s work is intended to mock no other than Pollux himself, the ὀνοματολόγος who conceived a heap of words without any criterion: Lucian would be using Pollux as an example in his polemic against the vacuous sophists of his age (see Bethe 1917, 775 and Hall 1981, 273–8; the identification is also supported by Jones 1972, 486–6, Tosi 1999, 52, and Tosi 2022; a more cautious view is taken by Jones 1986, 107–8 and Zweimüller 2008, 170–1).

Since Pollux’s rhetorical works are lost, it is difficult to assess his style. PhilostratusPhilostratus describes Pollux as both learned (πεπαιδευμένος) and uneducated (ἀπαίδευτος), because he was well trained in speaking in the Atticising manner (ἐγεγύμναστο τὴν γλῶτταν τὴν Ἀττικιζούσης λέξεως) but was not better than the others in using it (οὐδὲν βέλτιον ἑτέρου ἠττίκισεν). Philostratus also says that Pollux shared neither the qualities nor the defects of his teacher, thus implying that he was a mediocre writer (ἥκιστα μὲν γὰρ πίπτει, ἥκιστα δὲ αἴρεται ‘he least falls, but least elevates himself’), although some ‘streams of pleasure’ (ἡδονῶν λιβάδες) could be found in his speeches. The final observation carries the nuance of an unspoken statement, which implies a great deal about Philostratus’ supposedly unfavourable, yet not clearly expressed, opinion of Pollux: ταῦτα μὲν δὴ ὁποῖα τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τούτου σκοπεῖν ἔξεστι τοῖς ἀδεκάστως ἀκροωμένοις ‘Of what quality the [speeches] by this man may be judged by an impartial audience’. Philostratus does not seem to be impartial in his opinion, but he has the merit of providing two brief passages from Pollux’s works: the first one from a speech (αὐτοῦ διαλεγομένου: perhaps from the Διαλέξεις?) on the metamorphosis of Protheus, another perhaps from a μελέτη (μελετῶντος δὲ αὐτοῦ), in which Pollux pretends to be an island inhabitant forced to sell his son to pay taxes. To the passages that can be found in Philostratus as examples of Pollux’s prose one should add the prefatory letters of the Onomasticon (an analysis in Tribulato 2018) and some long digressions in the lexicon itself, e.g. 1.30–1 on Heracles Μήλων (‘of the Apple’), 1.45–9 on purple dye, 4.87–90 on the salpinx, or 5.42–8 on famous dogs.

Although Philostratus fails to mention it, Pollux was also the author of the lexicon called Onomasticon (see C. Content and structure). He was the Greek teacher of the young Commodus and dedicated all the books of the Onomasticon to him, but they were not all written at the same time. Since Commodus is called Καῖσαρ (‘Caesar’) in the prefatory letters, the first two books can be dated after 176 CE (i.e. the year in which Commodus received this title) and before 180 CE, when Marcus Aurelius died; from Book 3 onwards, Commodus is also greeted as κύριος, and this could indicate that Commodus had become emperor, so Books 3–10 would have been written after 180 CE (see Maudit, Moretti 2010, 523). The constant references to Heracles, Commodus’ patron deity, could also be attributed to the emperor’s cultural policy (see Zecchini 2007), although Matthaios (2013, 126 n. 264) is quite sceptical about this.

B. Transmission, editions, and reference studies

The general consensus is that Pollux’s Onomasticon has not been preserved in its entirety, but in an epitomisedEpitome form (see e.g. Dickey 2007, 96). The process of epitomisation seems clear when we consider the surviving quotations from ancient authors, which have probably suffered the most: they are often heavily modified, cut, or even misattributed (see Tosi 1988, 101–3). On the other hand, there may be some evidence that the text as transmitted by the manuscripts has not been hopelessly altered: the number of books has remained the same, as the ten letters to Commodus show; the organisation of the material, the recurring disposition according to categories, the connective sentences that introduce or conclude a topic, and the passages in which Pollux speaks in the first person – all these features can be traced back to Pollux himself rather than to the epitomiser(s). Some digressions have also survived, which do not contain strictly lexicographical material.

According to Bethe (1895; 1900–1937 vol. 1, V–XVII), the entire medieval tradition of Pollux descends from a single archetype (Ω) in majuscule script. This manuscript, which must have been written before the 9th century, contained the epitome of the Onomasticon with variant readings: by this time the original work of Pollux was already lost or inaccessible. This epitome was certainly well known to ArethasArethas of Caesarea, Archbishop of Caesarea (9th–10th century) and his entourage, as testified by three scholia associated with him (see Bethe 1895, 335–7; 1900–1937 vol. 1, VI). Considering that Arethas possessed a text of the Onomasticon that was essentially identical to the one we have, and that in several cases the Byzantine scholar represents an essential link in the survival of ancient works, Bethe (1895, 336–8; 1900–1937 vol. 1, V–VI, XV, XVII; followed by all later scholars) hypothesised that the entire tradition of Pollux goes back to a copy in the archbishop’s possession, which he corrected and provided with various readings. However, there is no definitive evidence to support this hypothesis: the only certainty is that Arethas owned a copy of the Onomasticon and that this copy was already an epitome.

Following Bethe’s insights, it can be inferred that at least four sub-archetypes and their respective families descend from Ω: a, b, c, and d (as in Cavarzeran, forthcoming; I, II, III, and IV, with Bethe’s sigla), to which the extant manuscripts can be traced.

Only one relevant manuscript survives from family a: Ambrosianus D 34 sup.Ambr. D 34 sup. (M), a 10th–11th-century volume which preserves only part of Books 1 and 2; it is one of the earliest surviving manuscripts of Pollux, but it also contains many orthographic and trivial errors. Family b consists of two witnesses: Parisinus graecus 2646Par. gr. 2646 (F, mid-14th century) and Salmanticensis BU 40Salm. 40 (S, mid-15th century); their text is complete and accurate, and very important for textual reconstruction. Family c comprises two very recent manuscripts: Parisinus graecus 2670Par. gr. 2670 (A, mid-15th century), which once belonged to Cardinal Isidorus of Kiev, is a very important witness owing to its completeness and precision, but it is not immediately clear where Isidorus himself intervened in the text or corrected it. The other is Marcianus graecus Z 520Marc. gr. Z 520 (V, mid-15th century), which unfortunately contains only Books 1–4, and of these only Book 1.1–151 can be assigned to family c, the rest to x (see below). Family d preserves most of the manuscripts of the Onomasticon. Its oldest witness is Palatinus Heidelbergensis graecus 375Heid. Pal. gr. 375, some folios of which were used as flyleaves in Vaticanus Urbinas graecus 92Vat. Urb. gr. 92; it bears the siglum C and can be dated to the end of the 10th century or the beginning of the next (see Bianconi 2013, 378–80). Laurentianus plut. 56.1Laur. plut. 56.1 is also quite old, and is the only manuscript of Pollux from the 12th century, i.e. the Comnenian Age, but it lacks Books 1–4, and 7 (see Stefec 2013, 126–30). The number of manuscripts of the d family written during the early Palaeologan Age is substantial: besides Parisinus graecus 2647Par. gr. 2647 (B, 14th century), the only one of them collated by Bethe, there are Vaticanus Palatinus graecus 209Vat. Pal. gr. 209 (D, mid-14th century), Vaticanus graecus 2226Vat. gr. 2226 (G, early 14th century), and Vaticanus graecus 2244Vat. gr. 2244 (H, 13th–14th century). These manuscripts are roughly contemporary with, or even older than, family b’s F, and are essential for determining the state and circulation of the text of the Onomasticon in that period. The majority of the numerous Renaissance manuscripts belong to family d. One striking feature of this family is that it presents a different and more shortened redaction of the text than the one transmitted by a, b, and c. Thus it is possible to identify two redactions of Pollux, a longer one (α) and a shorter one (β). The latter, in addition to cutting out several passages, inserts phrases such as ἐρεῖς before an expression, λέγεται at the beginning of a section, or καὶ τὰ ὅμοια to indicate when some terms are omitted. Such brevity, however, does not mean that family d depends on a less reliable source (see Cavarzeran, forthcoming).

A peculiar situation is found in Matritensis 4625Matr. 4625 (E, mid-14th century): this manuscript, neglected by Bethe and previous editors, preserves in Books 1–3 and 6–7 what is most likely a contaminated redaction based on families b, c, d, and a lost source; the rest comes exclusively from d. Matritensis 4625 is clearly the result of scholarly work carried out in the Palaeologan Age to produce a more complete and reliable text (see Cavarzeran, forthcoming). E had remarkable descendants: Laurentianus plut. 28.32Laur. plut. 28.32, Laurentianus plut. 58.1Laur. plut. 58.1, Marcianus graecus X, 26Marc. gr. X, 26, Laurentianus plut. 58.3Laur. plut. 58.3, and Oxford D’Orville 60Oxon. Bodl. D’Orville 60, all dated to the 15th century.

Group x, for which Bethe uses the siglum Ξ, is a set of manuscripts which transmit a text contaminated by c and d; they can be traced back to a common sub-archetype. The text of the Onomasticon, as transmitted by the redaction of x, is likely the result of an effort that took place in the late Palaeologan Age, probably in the first third of the 15th century, to which the oldest witnesses of this group belong: Laurentianus plut. 56.12Laur. plut. 56.12 (Xd), Marcianus graecus Z 529Marc. gr. Z 529 (Xa), and Vaticanus graecus 8Vat. gr. 8 (Xc). The fact that the Laurentianus was copied in Constantinople suggests that this is where the redaction originated. This group also includes Laurentianus plut. 10.21Laur. plut. 10.21, Laurentianus Aediles 224Laur. Aedil. 224, Marcianus graecus Z 493Marc. gr. Z 493, Marcianus graecus Z 520Marc. gr. Z 520, and Athens Μουσείο Μπενάκη TA 190Athens Benaki TA 190.

A witness of x was probably the main source (Bethe 1900–1937 vol. 1, XVI) for the Aldine edition of 1502, when Pollux’s work was first printed. The volume was published in Venice, in April 1502, as stated in the colophon: Ἐν Ἐνετίαις παρ’ Ἄλδῳ θαργηλιῶνι μηνί· .α φ β / Venetiis apud Aldum mense Aprili M.DII. It was dedicated to Elia Caprioli, an Italian humanist. Unfortunately, none of the Greek humanists of Aldus ManutiusAldus Manutius’ circle at the time are recorded as editors of this text of the Onomasticon.

As it was very useful for the learning of the Greek language and the knowledge of classical Greek culture, Pollux’s work was printed several times: in 1520 in Florence by Bernardo GiuntaBernardo Giunta; 1536 in Basel; in 1608 in Frankfurt, in an edition by Wolfang SeberWolfgang Seber (1573–1634) that included the Latin translation by Rufolph Walther (1519–1586) published in Basel in 1541 without the Greek text; in 1706 in Amsterdam, in an edition by Johann Heinrich LederlinJohann Heinrich Lederlin (1672–1737) and Tiberius HemsterhuisTiberius Hemsterhuis (1685–1766), with a very extensive commentary and the translation by Walther already included in Seber. The standard numbering of sections in Pollux’s text, adopted by later editors, dates from this edition.

As far as modern editions are concerned, Dindorf (1824) brings no innovations to the recensio, and simply reproduces a significant portion of the prefatory material from previous editions. Bekker (1846) offers, if not significant improvements to the text, greater clarity about the manuscripts he used (see Bekker 1846, III–IV). Bekker integrated the vulgate text with three manuscripts: C (Heidelbergensis graecus 375Heid. Pal. gr. 375, d family; he was unaware of the folios in Vaticanus Urbinas graecus 92Vat. Urb. gr. 92); B (Parisinus graecus 2647Par. gr. 2647, also d family), and A (Parisinus graecus 2670Par. gr. 2670), on which he, like Lederlin, seems to rely very heavily. On a completely different level are the studies of Eric Bethe, as demonstrated by Bethe (1895) and Bethe (1900–1937 vol. 1), respectively an article on the textual transmission of the work and the introduction to the first volume of his edition of the Onomasticon. Bethe’s edition (in three volumes published in 1900 [Books 1–5], 1930 [Books 6–10], and 1937 [indexes]), the most recent and by far the best available, was indeed a major achievement: the German scholar succeeded in identifying the main families of manuscripts and based his constitutio textus on reliable witnesses. However, although Bethe’s edition is a much better result than that of its predecessors, it suffers from some flaws, such as an excessive reliance on the variant readings of A, the lack of complete collations of E, L, and other Palaeologan manuscripts of the d family, and the forced merging of the two different redactions, which presents the reader with a text that in fact never existed.

C. Content and structure

Pollux’s Onomasticon is the only surviving onomastic lexicon of Greek antiquity and, in its own way, an encyclopaedia of Greek culture (König 2016, 298–304). It is arranged according to a horizontal structureOnomastic structure, i.e. by topics and semantic fields. Each book covers a specific topic, and begins with a short dedicatory letter to Commodus, followed by an index of the contents, a feature that was probably not present in the original work and was therefore disregarded by Bethe, who still included it in an appendix (Bethe 1900–1937 vol. 2, 249–56). Nevertheless, such indexes were most probably already present in the archetype Ω of the epitome and may have been compiled precisely during the epitomisation process, since they respond to the same editorial requirement as the epitome itself. Let us now examine the content of each book in detail.

Book 1. In the prefatory letter, Pollux explains that he will begin with the gods and then move on other topics in no particular order, except that they are all related to what a ruler should know about his dominion. Chapters 5–39 focus on deities, their names, festivals, rites, priests, songs, on pious and impious men, and related verbs. Pollux then moves on to various spheres of human life: royalty (40–2), swiftness and slowness (43), dying (44–9), merchants and artisans (50), good and bad seasons (51–53), time and activities to be done in their proper time (54–72), household (73–81), ships and related activities and places (82–125), warfare (126–49; see Bettalli 2007), foes and friends (150–4), things that can happen in war (155–80), horses and related activities (181–220), and agriculture (221–55).
Book 2. The second book focuses on the human body and related topics: terms for humanity (5), generation (6), names of human ages (8–18), verbs indicating pregnancy and birth (19) and related to ages (19–21), body parts treated individually and in greater detail (22–225; see also Olson 2022): nouns, verbs, medical nomenclature, expressions, attestations in ancient writers, and a list of possible diseases are generously provided by the lexicographer. The end is devoted to the two parts that make up the human being: soul (226–31) and body (232–5); at the end there is a short description of the five senses (236).
Book 3. The third book begins by picking up the thread of the previous one. It deals with family, kinship, marriage, and relationships with family and friends (5–64); and those with the city (65–7), love (68–72), masters and slaves (73–83). This is followed by a section on banking and money (84–8, see Parise 2007). The next part is devoted to the experiences a person might have in their life (89–139), such as travel, joy, good luck, illness, or death, whereas the last part deals with athletic contests and disciplines.
Book 4. Focusing on the liberal arts, it begins with a general introduction on knowledge (7–10) and the list of the virtues that education can provide and their opposites (10–5). The book then goes on to deal with matters relating to each of the liberal arts: grammar (18–9), rhetoric (20–38), philosophy (39–40); sophists (41–51), poetry (52–6), music and instruments (57–90), heralds (91–4), dance (95–112), acting (113–20), theatre (121–32) and masks (133–154), astronomy (155–9), geometry (160–1), arithmetic (162–5), measuring (166–70), weighing (170–6), medicine, instruments and diseases (177–207), and midwifery (208).
Book 5. Pollux here tackles the topic of hunting, an activity associated with the upper social classes and wild animals. As in Book 4, the beginning defines the topic with the keyword θήρα (‘hunting’) and provides synonyms, expressions, and related verbs (9–14); the focus then shifts to hunting grounds (14–5), the names of the offspring of wild beasts and their hides (16), and the helpers, equipment, and activities of a hunter (17–41). An extensive discussion of dogs occupies Chapters 42–65, then it is the turn of the detailed descriptions of wild beasts (66–85), animal calls and human voices (86–90), places used for ordure and terms for faeces (91–2), and animal breeding (92–4). The next topic is quite different: the names of women’s ornaments (95–102). Chapters 103–70 are, by Pollux’s own design, a continuous list of numerous terms with their synonyms and opposites (e.g. courage, fear, praise, reproach, daemon names, abundance, harm, experience), ending with a section about Plato’s usage of ταὐτόν and θάτερον (169–70).
Book 6. It deals with the symposium and food in general. The usual list of synonyms and terms related to symposium (7–13) is followed by sections on wine (14–26), the definition of a symposiast (26–29), the different types of food and containers (32–87), the cook’s equipment (88–100), meals (101–2), tools that can be used in a symposium (103–5), games and amusements (106–111). After the chapter on the verb for dismissing a symposium (112), Pollux again introduces topics not directly related to the main one (113–290). Chapters 155–74 are especially interesting: here Pollux collects nouns and verbs according to their prefix (e.g. ὁμο-, συν-, ἡμι-, παν-, etc.).
Book 7. This book deals with crafts, trades (8–17), and artisans (6–7; 17–201). Pollux discusses many professions, such as those related to food (21–7), textiles and clothing (28–96), metallurgy (97–108), woodcutting (109–10), building (111–25), and many others (126–200). Chapters 201–6 are devoted to the less respectable (αἰσχίους) occupations, such as prostitution and dice-gaming. Like Book 5, also Book 7 ends by explicitly challenging Plato: Plt. 279d–283a is used to quote a list of names of professions (206–10). The book ends (210–1) with terms related to books and libraries (see Radici 2018).
Book 8. It can be roughly divided into two parts. The first deals with justice (6–7), judges (8–20), and verbs and nouns related to legal matters (21–81). The second, starting from ἀρχή (‘power, office’) and its derivatives (82–4), deals with Athenian offices and institutions (85–157); on this book see Bearzot (2007); Maffi (2007); Tuci (2007a); Tuci (2007b); Amaraschi (2015).
Book 9. It provides an introduction to the city, the different parts and buildings that make it up, and what can be found in the surrounding area (6–50). Then there is a considerable digression (though Pollux calls it βραχέα ‘brief’) on minting, goods, and precious metals (51–93); this is followed by an equally extensive section of quite a different nature concerning children’s games (94–129; about 9.100, see Vespa 2022). Then, ‘in order’ – he says – ‘to complete the book’, Pollux again adds lists of words (130–62) connected by synonymy or similarity (κατὰ συνωνυμίαν ἢ ὁμοιότητα).
Book 10. The last book is devoted to the names of objects, instruments, and tools related to everyday life, craftsmanship, seamanship, agriculture, husbandry, and so on, often incorporating terms used in the previous books (see Cirone 2018; Casevitz 2021).

On a more detailed level, let us look at how a section of Book 1 (5–39) is structured – at least in the preserved epitome. The following chapters at the beginning of the Onomasticon, concerning the gods and everything related to the sphere of the divine, are structured in this way:

(5) Definition of the terms to be used for the gods: θεοί and δαίμονες.

(6–13) On sacred places, in this order: the place itself (χωρίον) where the gods are worshipped; the places where a temple should be built; the names of the parts of a temple; the images that are worshipped (βρέτας and δείκηλον – Pollux says – are not accepted as too poetic); places, i.e. altars, where sacrifices are offered (the correct use of ἑστία and ἐσχάρα is explained); adjectives that can be used for a consecrated place (τόπος) and the opposite; verbs and then nouns that indicate the action of building and destroying a temple. In this section, the presence of νεωποιῆσαι is noteworthy: it is a very rare compound of νεώς and ποιῆσαι. Then follow expressions for workers who build temples and statues; names for their crafts and related verbs.

(14) God-worshippers, simply listed: male and then female. The only observations are made for θυηπόλος (‘diviner’), defined as ‘poetic’, and Πυθία (‘Pythia’, Πυθιάς in some witnesses), which should only be used for the prophetess at Delphi.

(15–9) Prophecy: adjectives for a place (τόπος) where there is mantic inspiration; nouns denoting a person who has the ability to foresee; adjectives and phrases for the mantic πνεῦμα; verbs denoting a person inspired by the gods (note that Pollux deems ἐπιπνευσθῆναι to be κακόφωνον here, though it appears in Pl. Phdr. 262d); nouns for the action (ὀνόματα τοῦ πράγματος) of being divinely inspired and relative adverbs; the place for prophecy (χωρίον again); verbs (πρᾶγμα); nouns denoting the activity of giving oracles (ἔργον); a note on the name πυθόχρηστον, which can only be used for the oracle at Delphi; names for those who consult an oracle; how to call the mantic art; names for diviners and seers; again phrases or verbs (but καθ’ἕτερον εἶδος χρείας ‘according to another kind of usage’) indicating the action of giving oracles. The section ends with several adjectives (four of them compounds in -ληπτος) that can be applied to people inspired by the gods.

(20–2) On piety and its opposite: pious men, overly pious men, and impious men; nouns of the action (as before, ὀνόματα τοῦ πράγματος) of being pious and impious, then related adverbs.

(23) A list of adjectives that can be used for a sanctuary (ἱερόν), most of which are compounds in -πλουτος.

(23–4) A very long list of divine epithets.

(25–8) Ritual: verbs and phrases that can be used to describe a person approaching or invoking the gods, or making sacrifices; votive offerings and related verbs; verbs for ritual chants; various nouns for sacrifices or rituals, categorised as πράγματα; adjectives for votive offerings; related and rarer expressions.

(30–1)Poll. 1.30–1 These two chapters contain the first digression of the Onomasticon. It is about a very refined myth, otherwise only attested in a fragment by Apollodorus of Athens (FGrHist/BNJ 244 F 115 = Zenob. 5.22), which explains why the Boeotians sacrifice apples to Heracles. It is introduced as a sweet relief (γλυκύτης) for the discomfort that studying can cause in students, as in other similar passages of the Onomasticon (see also 1.45Poll. 1.45; 2.94Poll. 2.94; 4.87Poll. 4.87). In fact, this short narrative gives Pollux the opportunity to use many terms related to the religious sphere that he has previously presented or will present later, thus showing how to use them effectively (such words are underlined in the text below). This passage can be regarded as a sample of Atticist writing given by Pollux as if he were a teacher: the myth itself, on the other hand, gives a tasty aetiological explanation of the Boeotian custom, based on the interpretation of the word μῆλον.

ἵνα δὲ καὶ ἀναπαύσω σε πρὸς μικρόν, ἐπεὶ τὸ διδασκαλικὸν εἶδος αὐχμηρόν ἐστι καὶ προσκορές, οὐδὲν ἂν κωλύοι προσθεῖναι καὶ μύθου γλυκύτητα εἰς ψυχαγωγίαν, ὅτι καὶ μῆλα θύουσι περὶ Βοιωτίαν Ἡρακλεῖ – λέγω δὲ οὐ τὰ πρόβατα τῇ ποιητικῇ φωνῇ, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἀκρόδρυα – ἐκ τοιᾶσδε τῆς αἰτίας. ἐνειστήκει μὲν γὰρ ἡ πανήγυρις τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ κατήπειγε τοῦ θύειν ὁ καιρός, τὸ δὲ ἱερεῖον ἄρα κριὸς ἦν. καὶ οἱ μὲν ἄγοντες ἄκοντες ἐβράδυνον – ὁ γὰρ Ἀσωπὸς ποταμὸς οὐκ ἦν διαβατός, μέγας ἄφνω ῥυείς – οἱ δ’ ἀμφὶ τὸ ἱερὸν παῖδες ὁμοῦ παίζοντες ἀπεπλήρουν τῆς ἱερουργίας τὸν νόμον· λαβόντες γὰρ μῆλον ὡραῖον κάρφη μὲν ὑπέθεσαν αὐτῷ τέτταρα, δῆθεν τοὺς πόδας, δύο δ’ ἐπέθεσαν – τὰ δ’ ἦν τὰ κέρατα – καὶ κατὰ τοὺς ποιητὰς ἀποθύειν ἔφασαν τὸ μῆλον ὡς πρόβατον. ἡσθῆναί τε λέγεται τῇ θυσίᾳ τὸν Ἡρακλέα, καὶ μέχρι τοῦδε παραμένειν τῆς ἱερουργίας τὸν νόμον. καὶ καλεῖται παρὰ τοῖς Βοιωτοῖς Μήλων ὁ Ἡρακλῆς, τοὔνομα ἐκ τοῦ τρόπου τῆς θυσίας λαβών.

To give you a little respite, since the task of teaching is arid and nauseating, nothing could prevent one from adding the pleasantness of myth as a diversion. [One should know] that in some parts of Boeotia they sacrificed apples (μῆλα) to Heracles – I do not mean sheep (μῆλα), as in poetic diction, but fruits – for this reason. The festival of the god was imminent, and the time of sacrifice was near: the sacrificial victim was a ram. Those who carried it were unintentionally late – for the river Asopus was not fordable, since it had suddenly overflowed – but the children playing near the temple did what the sacred ceremony required: they took a nice-looking apple and attached four twigs to the bottom – just like feet! And two on top: these would be the horns. And according to the poets, they sacrificed an apple (μῆλον) as if it were a sheep (μῆλον). The sacrifice is said to have pleased Heracles, and the custom of the ceremony is observed to this day. And Heracles is called ‘of the Apple’ (Μήλων) among the Boeotians, because he took his name from the way the sacrifice was performed.

The learned Pollux is clearly hinting at Thucydides (2.5.3 ὁ γὰρ Ἀσωπὸς ποταμὸς ἐρρύη μέγας καὶ οὐ ῥᾳδίως διαβατὸς ἦν ‘for the river Asopus was in full flow and was not easily fordable’). In this passage, the historian speaks of Theban troops arriving too late because of the flooding of the river, just like those who carried the ram in the myth; one wonders if Pollux was quoting Thucydides somewhat ironically for his reader(s). The pair ἄγοντες ἄκοντες also displays a kind of alliteration and paronomasia that can be traced back to Pollux’ rhetorical teaching (on the Onomasticon as a rhetorical tool, see Chiron 2013, and also Conti Bizzarro 2004).

(32–3) After this enjoyable story, Pollux resumes the onomastic enumeration. It is now the turn of cleansing, cleansed people, and the opposite, with related adverbs; substantivised adjectives or nouns for something pure and their opposite (here called πράγματα); phrases indicating the process of cleansing. (33) Objects used in sacrifices.

(34) Festivals; people celebrating a festival; various kinds of festivals and public banquets; verbs (ῥήματα) for feasting.

(35–6) Mysteries. General nouns for mysteries; nouns for people taking part in mysteries; verbs for celebrating mysteries; the various types of ministers who perform mysteries; terms for an initiate; alternative terms or phrases for mystery celebrations.

(37) The proper names of some festivals.

(38) The proper names of some hymns to the gods.

(38–9) On oaths. In this order: verbs, adjectives, again verbs and phrases.

The συντάξεως σχῆμα (Poll. praef. 7.4–5) – ‘the structure’ of the Onomasticon – is clearly visible in such thematic sections, whether or not it reflects Pollux’ original arrangement. Pollux usually organises the material – though not always strictly in the same order – according to the part of speech to which each word belongs: this includes common categories such as ῥῆμα, ὄνομα, μετοχή, and ἐπίρρημα, but also less common ones like πρᾶγμα or ὄνομα τοῦ πράγματος (e.g. 1.16Poll. 1.16, 1.21Poll. 1.21, 4.23Poll. 4.23, 8.9Poll. 8.9, 8.79Poll. 8.79). πρᾶγμαπρᾶγμα seems to be used by Pollux in a very distinctive way, and it is not a traditional part of speech. Chronopoulos (2016a, 5–6) argues that Pollux uses πρᾶγμα for ‘abstract nouns, adjectives in neutral with article denoting abstract nouns (here, e.g. 1.33Poll. 1.33), or infinitives (here, e.g. 1.17Poll. 1.17)’ that specify ‘the action itself’. There is, however, an exception in Poll. 5.111Poll. 5.111, where this terminology is used to introduce the meteorological phenomena that can occur during the seasons. Pollux seems to have superimposed another criterion on this grammatical one, for nouns can also be divided according to other categories: whether they indicate places (τόπος or χωρίον), or whether they are perhaps tools or instruments (ἔργον, σκευή, or ἐργαλεῖον), parts of something (μέρη), or individuals; but such categories can easily be extended as the need arises (e.g. 5.15Poll. 5.15 ἔκγονα, 5.16Poll. 5.16 δέρμα, 5.53Poll. 5.53 νόσημα in the section on hounds). In other passages it is possible to see a series of adjectives derived from the same root, such as the aforementioned compounds in -ληπτος at 1.19Poll. 1.19 and -πλουτος, or formed with the same prefixPrefixes or first element, such as compounds in πολυ- at 1.23Poll. 1.23. Also, a long section in Book 9.110–7Poll. 9.110–7 is devoted to nouns ending in -ινδα, or another in 6.155–74Poll. 6.155–74 to words beginning with a particular prefix.

D. Sources

It is not easy to identify Pollux’s scholarly sources, since his work covers many topics and aspects of the universe and human life, and a complete research on this matter has not yet been accomplished. Moreover, even if Bethe’s indexes can provide a general overview, Pollux usually does not openly declare his sources, in order to avoid what he defines as περιττὸς ὄγκος (‘too much bulk’), as he informs us in the dedicatory letter of Book 6 (Praef. 6)Poll. Praef. 6. One must also bear in mind that the text of the Onomasticon has undergone a process of epitomisation, during which it is likely that names of authors and quotations were abridged, and some discussions oversimplified or clumsily rearranged; some attributions are erroneous, but they probably go back to Pollux himself and are not due to epitomisation (see Tosi 1988, 87–113).

However, Pollux himself gives some pieces of information about his sources here and there. For example, in the dedicatory letter of Book 2 he claims to have used some authors associated with the Peripatos (e.g. Clearchus of Soli: see Nesselrath 1990, 84), while in that of Book 9 (Praef. 9)Poll. Praef. 9 he mentions an Onomasticon by a Gorgias whose identity is still unknown (see Regali 2007), a work which Pollux does not seem to appreciate:

ὀνομαστικόν τι βιβλίον πεποίηται Γοργίᾳ τῷ σοφιστῇ, οὑτωσὶ μὲν ἀκοῦσαι παιδευτικόν, εἰς δὲ πεῖραν ἐλθεῖν ὀλίγου λόγου. τούτῳ τῷ συγγράμματι πάλαι μὴ προσομιλήσας, ἀλλὰ νῦν ἐντυχὼν ἠρξάμην περὶ τούτων τῶν βιβλίων ὥς τι ὄντων φρονεῖν.

The sophist Gorgias wrote an onomastic book, which was good for education at a first hearing, but when put to the test, was of little value. For a long time I was not acquainted with this work, but now that I have chanced upon it, I have begun to think that these books of mine are worth something.

For Book 10 he resorted to a work by EratosthenesEratosthenes of Cyrene, entitled Σκευογραφικός (Praef. 10)Poll. Praef. 10, about the usefulness of which, again, he has some reservations, but which he nevertheless used especially for the Realien and for the many quotations from comedy that can be found in Book 10 (see Nesselrath 1990, 88; Tosi 1994, 171):

εὑρὼν δὲ ὀνόματος κρίσει τοῦτο Ἐρατοσθένην ἐν τῷ Σκευογραφικῷ λέγειν (fr. 23 Bagordo), ἐπῆλθέ μοι ζητεῖν τὸ τοῦ Ἐρατοσθένους βιβλίον διὰ τὸ προσαγωγὸν τῆς χρήσεως· ὡς δ’ εὗρον μόλις, οὐδὲν εἶχεν ὧν ἤλπισα.

When in an inquiry about the choice of a term I found out that Eratosthenes had discussed it in the Σκευογραφικός (‘On Tools’), it occurred to me, in the excitement of using it, to look for Eratosthenes’ book. But as soon as I found it, it had nothing of what I had hoped for.

Eratosthenes’ work on comedy is also cited in 10.60Poll. 10.60 παρὰ μέντοι Ἐρατοσθένει ἐν τοῖς περὶ κωμῳδίας (fr. 1 Bagordo); according to some scholars (Rohde 1870, 21; Naechster 1908, 10), the aforementioned Σκευογραφικός would be part of the Περὶ κωμῳδίας, while Strecker (1884, 13–4), Latte (1925, 163–4), Tosi (2007, 4), Tribulato (2019, 246–7), and Dettori (2023) consider the former to be an onomasticon, i.e. a work independent of the Περὶ κωμῳδίας, or a section of a larger onomastic work compiled by Eratosthenes, which contained many references to the studies on comedy (see Broggiato 2024).

There is little doubt that one of Pollux’s main sources was the vast lexicon of PamphilusPamphilus (see e.g. Naechster 1908, 5; Nesselrath 1990, 85–6; Degani 1995, 522 n. 64; Sonnino 2014, 178–9; Valente 2015, 57–8; Tosi 2022), which was composed in the second half of the 1st century CE and influenced much of later lexicography. This lexicon, which was also used by Athenaeus and Harpocration, is probably the intermediate source behind Pollux’s use of Didymus’ lexicographical material, such as the Λέξις κῳμική (see Nesselrath 1990, 96; Sonnino 2014, 178–9; Benuzzi 2023, 24 with further bibliography).

Pollux’s many sources must also have included Iubas II’s Θεατρικὴ ἱστορία (see Ippolito 2006), especially with regard to the theatre, a subject which Pollux addresses in Book 4 (see Rohde 1870). However, Rohde’s assumption has been revised (see Bapp 1885, 108–11; Nesselrath 1990, 95 with previous bibliography), so that an intermediate source between Iubas (see Ippolito 2005) and Pollux must be postulated. Iubas is also quoted in a passage in 5.88Poll. 5.88 in MS C, which Bethe (1900–1937 vol. 1, 285) considered to be a scholium, although in my opinion there is no reason not to regard the text of C as a part of the original epitome: εὗρον μέντοι ἐγὼ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἄρκτων βράζειν καὶ βράζουσαι, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἐλεφάντων στρηνύζουσι παρὰ Ἰόβᾳ, ‘I found βράζειν (‘to growl’) and βράζουσαι (‘growling’) for bears, στρηνύζουσι (‘trumpet’) for elephants in Iubas’.

In Book 2, where Pollux deals with human anatomy, he extensively draws upon – but never explicitly mentions – the works of Rufus of EphesusRufus of Ephesus (see Rohde 1870, 83–90; Nesselrath 1990, 83–4; Sideras 1994, 1133–4; Chronopoulos 2016b, 32–40), a medical writer who lived in the 1st–2nd century CE (see Manetti 2023), and especially his short treatise on the parts of the human body (Περὶ ἀνατομῆς τῶν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου μορίων, edited in Daremberg, Ruelle 1879). Since the Onomasticon contains anatomical terms that do not occur in Rufus’ text, it is quite possible that Pollux used a longer version of Rufus’ treatise than the one transmitted by the medieval tradition. In this book Hippocrates and the Hippocratic corpus are also quoted several times (13x), whereas they never appear in Rufus’ Περὶ ἀνατομῆς.

Other sources for the Onomasticon can be found in Xenophon, Epaphroditus, and Aristophanes of Byzantium. XenophonXenophon was used not only for Book 5 on hunting (see Tosi 2022), but also – along with a treatise by Simon of Athens (6x) – for horses and horsemanship (see Tribulato 2019, 234–44, with further bibliography), as well as warfare (see Bettalli 2007). The 1st-century CE grammarian EpaphroditusEpaphroditus (on his life see Billerbeck, Clerc 2018) has been suggested as a source for Pollux on the basis of 8.16 (see Naechster 1908, 5; Nesselrath 1990, 86 n. 59; Tosi 2022). The Περὶ ὀνομασίας ἡλικιῶν by Aristophanes of ByzantiumAristophanes of Byzantium seems to have been used for the names of human ages in Book 2, his Περὶ συγγενικῶν ὀνομάτων for family relations in Book 3, and the Πολιτικὰ ὀνόματα for civic life; it is not certain, though, whether Pollux used these works directly or indirectly (see Slater 1986, XVII; Nesselrath 1990, 84–5).

A final relevant question concerns the names of Realien in Book 10, since Pollux claims to have used the lists of δημιόπρατα (‘confiscated goods’) he found in Athenian inscriptions. These are the famous Attic stelae in the Eleusinion, which recorded the confiscated property of those who had violated the Mysteries (see Pratchett 1953). In 10.97Poll. 10.97 Pollux says ἐν δὲ ταῖς Ἀττικαῖς στήλαις, αἳ κεῖνται ἐν Ἐλευσινίῳ (Bergk and Theodoridis : Ἐλευσῖνι MSS), ‘In the Attic stelae located in the Eleusinion (or ‘in Eleusis’ if we do not accept Bergk’s emendation)’. Theodoridis (1976, 64–9), who thoroughly covers this topic, rejects Böckh’s (1886, 129) hypothesis that Pollux consulted these δημιόπρατα as a written collection, and emphasises that he must have seen the stelae directly in their place near the Agora in Athens, using them as one of the sources for the Onomasticon in Book 10.

Other technical writers whose works Pollux drew on are Aratus (2.38Poll. 2.38), Herophilus (2.202Poll. 2.202), some ἀρχαῖοι ἰατροί ‘ancient physicians’ (9.69Poll. 9.69) writing about medicine, and – most remarkably – some authors of ὀψοποιικὰ συγγράμματα ‘treatises on the art of cookery’ (6.70Poll. 6.70).

In addition to these, there are authors who are not explicitly mentioned and those who hide behind terms such as ἔνιοι or τινές, who are probably grammarians, lexicographers, or philologists (see Bussès 2011, 27) – not much different from what usually happens in scholia. It is also noteworthy that in several cases Pollux claims to have found information about the use of a term from erudite sources without having encountered it himself: see, for instance, 1.8Poll. 1.8 καίτοι οὐδέπω ἐντετύχηκα τῷ ὀνόματι ‘But I have never encountered this word (i.e. ἀβέβηλος) as yet’; 8.78Poll. 8.78 χλεύη μὲν λέγεται παρὰ πολλοῖς, ἐγὼ δ’ οὐκ οἶδα εὑρών, ‘χλεύη (joke) is said in many [authors], but I have never found it’; 10.35Poll. 10.35 ἐν δὲ τῇ Κρίτωνος Μεσσηνίᾳ καὶ τῷ Ῥίνθωνος Τηλέφῳ καὶ κράββατον εἰρῆσθαι λέγουσιν· ἐγὼ δ’ οὐκ ἐντετύχηκα τοῖς δράμασιν, ‘It is said that in the Messenia by Crito (fr. 2) and in the Telephus by Rintho (fr. 9) κράββατον (bed) was used, but I have not found these dramas’.

E. Canon

As already noted, Pollux’s approach to Atticism is generally considered much more moderate than that of his contemporary – and perhaps rival – Phrynichus, a fact reflected in the canon and in the numerous and varied authors and works cited by the former, as opposed to the restrictive canon of the latter. Pollux does not confine himself to a strict selection of authors, but also accepts expressions derived from dialects and technical terms: his general criterion for including a word in his lexicon is that it is attested in ancient literature (see Matthaios 2023, 88–9). Such a vast array of authors and works naturally raises the question of whether Pollux was quoting first hand or from compendia or other lexica, with modern scholars generally leaning towards the latter possibility (see Section D. Sources). Pollux’s decision to arrange the material thematically rather than alphabetically also suggests a less strict attitude and more descriptive approach (Tosi 2007, 6). However, the analysis of Pollux’s canon remains very important for understanding his work, since it is usually the criterion by which he determines whether a term or an expression can be used in a good Greek or not; even canonical authors are not automatically exempt from criticism. Counting the number of times an author is cited in the Onomasticon (using the valuable lists found in Bethe 1900–1937 vol. 3; Bussès 2011, 86–9) can certainly be useful for reconstructing Pollux’s perspective and approach to Atticist writers; nevertheless, one should not overlook the fact that the transmitted text is in an epitomised form, and this could also reflect the tastes and especially the selection of readers from later ages. It must also be said that on many occasions some authors are quoted in order to be criticised, so one cannot rely on the sheer numbers in this matter.

Pollux quotes Homer extensively (139x), and Homeric terms are often explicitly approved by him: cf. e.g. 1.5Poll. 1.5 οὕτω γὰρ Ὁμήρῳ (Il. 1.222) δοκεῖ δαίμονας καλεῖν τοὺς θεούς ‘For it seems fitting to Homer to call the gods daimones’, and 5.76Poll. 5.76 Ὅμηρος δ’ ὀρθῶς λέγει ‘ἀμφ’ ἔλαφον κεραόν’ (Il. 11.475) (Naechster 1908, 17; Bethe 1900–1937 vol. 3, 10) ‘Homer correctly says ‘about a horned stag’’. In this respect, Pollux is more comparable to Aelius Dionysius and Pausanias (Strobel 2011, 185) than to Phrynichus or Moeris. In terms of poetry, however, the largest share of quotations, as expected, is represented by Attic tragedy and comedy. By far the most quoted tragedian is Sophocles (73x), followed by Aeschylus (40x), and Euripides (31x); after them comes Ion (6x) but his importance is clearly less. In some cases Pollux simply refers to a collective τραγῳδοί (e.g. 1.6Poll. 1.6; 2.50Poll. 2.50) or uses expressions such as ἐν τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ (e.g. 2.74Poll. 2.74; 2.88Poll. 2.88). When dealing with these raw numbers, though, one must be very careful, since the text of the Onomasticon also contains implicit quotations that are harder to identify. Privitera (2018, 270), who analyses the total number of tragic quotations in Books 1–3 and 6, notes that Pollux’s interest in tragic authors is only to show the different meanings of a term or expression, which is why the lexicographer does not quote longer tragic passages.

Pollux divides Comedy into ἀρχαία or παλαιά (e.g. 2.47Poll. 2.47; 2.176Poll. 2.176; 7.132Poll. 7.132), μέση (e.g. 1.232Poll. 1.232; 2.197Poll. 2.197), and νέα (e.g. 2.47Poll. 2.47; 3.56Poll. 3.56; 6.90Poll. 6.90). The most representative Old Comedy playwright is, unsurprisingly, Aristophanes (495x), but Pollux also drew on the authority of Cratinus (88x), Eupolis (88x), Pherecrates (45x), Plato (45x), and Theopompus (29x). As far as Middle Comedy is concerned, to which Pollux probably had access through Erathostenes and Aristophanes of Byzantium, I refer to the very thorough study of Nesselrath (1990, 83–102, with further bibliography): Pollux indeed shows a stronger inclination towards Middle and New Comedy compared to other lexicographers (see also Sonnino 2014, 170–1; 191–2). This is evidenced by the fact that he usually employs many authors of later comedy, who are quoted extensively: Alexis (34x), Antiphanes (40x), Eubulus (14x), Menander (57x), and Philemon (13x). The popular MenanderMenander is constantly present in the Onomasticon, but this does not prevent his language from being criticised in some cases (e.g. 2.82Poll. 2.82; 3.29Poll. 3.29; 9.139Poll. 9.139; see also Naechster 1908, 6–7). This behaviour of Pollux – not approving Menander as a whole, but on a case-by-case basis – allows us to place the lexicographer between the two main Atticist tendencies: Phrynichus’ exclusion of Menander from the canon and the acceptance (or neutral stance) taken by of Aelius Dionysius and Pausanias (see Tribulato 2014, 204–7; Favi 2022, 311–2; see entries Aelius Dionysius, Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα and Pausanias Atticista, Ἀττικῶν ὀνομάτων συναγωγή). Nevertheless, it is worth noting that for Pollux Menander is an inferior model compared to Aristophanes, as he openly states in 1.79Poll. 1.79:

[...] καὶ κοιτών· εἰ γὰρ καὶ Μένανδρος αὐτὸ βαρβαρικὸν οἴεται, ἀλλ’ Ἀριστοφάνης ὁ κωμῳδοδιδάσκαλος τὰ τοιαῦτα πιστότερος αὐτοῦ, εἰπὼν ἐν Αἰολοσίκωνι [...].

[...] and κοιτών. Indeed, even if Menander (fr. 614) believes this to be a barbaric [word], nevertheless Aristophanes the comic playwright [is] more reliable in these matters than he, when he says in the Aiolosikon (fr. 6) [...].

As regards Attic prose, Pollux seems to accept Xenophon (152x, mostly in Book 5), Thucydides (87x), and even Herodotus (79x). While Thucydides was never a controversial author for the canon, the same cannot be said for the other two. XenophonXenophon is rejected by Phrynichus’ Eclogue and Moeris, whereas Aelius Dionysius, the Antiatticist, and Orus approve of him (see Münscher 1920, 163–76; Sgobbi 2004, 228–49; Huitink, Rood 2019, 23–32; see entries Aelius Dionysius, Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα; Antiatticista, forthcoming; Orus, Ἀττικῶν λέξεων συναγωγή). This does not mean that Xenophon is always exempt from criticism: for example, in 3.100Poll. 3.100 the participle γοωμένη (Cyr. 4.6.9) is reported as ‘rather poetic’, or in 3.134Poll. 3.134 the term λεουργός (Mem. 1.3.9) is labelled as nothing less than φορτικόν (‘coarse’, see below Section F. Evaluative terminology). HerodotusHerodotus is not usually included in Phrynichus’ canon; he appears only twice in Moeris, but the paucity of attestations in this lexicon and the apparent inconsistency do not allow us to draw any firm conclusions (see the entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής; Tribulato 2016, 182–3); he is, on the other hand, very present in the Antiatticist (see Tribulato 2016, 187–91). According to Strobel (2011, 242–3), it is possible that Pollux did not consider Herodotus canonical, but used him to provide synonyms for Attic terms; on the contrary, Landucci (2007, 155) suggests that Pollux included Herodotus in the canon, thus broadening Phrynichus’ selection.

On the other hand, the presence, in some cases substantial, of Attic orators in Pollux’s work is in line with what we would expect: Demosthenes (101x), Hyperides (83x; on the reception of Hyperides in Pollux see Horváth 1997, 44–7), Lysias (50x), Isaeus (45x), Antiphon (28x), Dinarchus (26x), Aeschines (20x), Isocrates (18x), Lycurgus (3x), and Andocides (x1).

Judging by the number of mentions (218x), PlatoPlato is a constant presence in the Onomasticon, for his importance both as an Attic writer and as a thinker (for Pollux’s use of Plato and his view of him, see Zadorojnyi 2023). When Plato is mentioned, he is usually approved, but in several cases he is also criticised, in the same way as other authors (e.g. 3.55Poll. 3.55; 3.133Poll. 3.133; 6.144Poll. 6.144). Plato also seems to be mentioned in passages whose aims are broader than strictly linguistic instruction: for example, he serves as an authority in 1.5Poll. 1.5 for the term δαίμων to designate the παντὸς κυβερνήτης (‘governor of all’), or for the location of the intellect in 2.226Poll. 2.226. What is said in 7.206Poll. 7.206 is also interesting for understanding Pollux’s view of Plato. Introducing a series of names of professions that he finds in Plato’s Laws (see Bethe’s apparatus ad loc.), Pollux adds: καὶ τὰ σὺν αὐταῖς ὀνόματα, εἴτε σπουδάζων ἐχρῆτο τοῖς ὀνόμασιν εἴτε καὶ μή (‘and the relative nouns, whether he used these nouns seriously or not’). According to Zadorojnyi (2023, 51), this ‘mirrors the view that was current in the Platonist circles (Plu. QC 740b), namely that Plato may behave as a mischievous wordsmith’.

As for Pollux’s view of the writers of his time, Conti Bizzarro (2004, 77–83) suggests that he may also have adopted terms he found in the works of Philo of AlexandriaPhilo of Alexandria. A Philo is mentioned in 10.188Poll. 10.188 (ἣν ἢ Φίλων ἢ Θεόδωρος συνέθηκε) for a quotation that cannot be traced back to any extant work of Philo’s. However, Conti Bizzarro’s suggestion is very stimulating and I see no reason to deem it implausible, even if the text in 10.188 is inconsistent and does not provide any clarification. Philo’s name is also found in a collection of excerpts from the Onomasticon contained in MS Marc. gr. Z 490Marc. gr. Z 490 (see Cavarzeran 2022, 136; for a recent discussion of the Pollux excerpts, see Conti Bizzarro 2021). If we assume that Philo was used by Pollux, we would be faced with an ironic situation: namely, that a Byzantine compiler interpolated Pollux with quotations from an author whom Pollux himself had consulted but never explicitly mentioned.

F. Evaluative terminology

Pollux’s evaluative terminology has been extensively addressed in several recent studies: Bussès (2011, 33–82); Radici (2011) ; Matthaios (2013) ; Valente (2013) ; Conti Bizzarro (2018) . Throughout the Onomasticon, several different categories of speakers are mentioned (for an extensive discussion, see Matthaios 2013, 81–129). One of them is referred to as oἱ νῦν(οἱ) νῦν. This label has different meanings. In some cases, Pollux uses it to explain to the readers of his time the meaning of a rare or obsolete word, see e.g. 7.149Poll. 7.149, where Xenophon’s καρποῦσθαι κάρπωσιν (‘to derive profit’) is clarified by ἣν οἱ νῦν καρπείαν (‘which the contemporary speakers [call] usufruct’); or 6.89Poll. 6.89, ὃ δὲ νῦν ταγηνοστρόφιον, οἱ πάλαι λιστρίον ἢ πτέον, ‘what contemporary speakers [call] ταγηνοστρόφιον, the ancient speakers called λιστρίον or πτέον’; or 6.17Poll. 6.17, καὶ μελίκρατον δέ, τὸ νῦν οἰνόμελι, ‘and μελίκρατον, now called οἰνόμελι’. In no case does Pollux seem to condemn the language of contemporary speakers: his interest is merely descriptive. Another use of νῦν is identified by Matthaios (2013, 89–91) in relation to κέραμος in 7.162Poll. 7.162: καὶ αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ τέγος οὐ μόνον οἱ νῦν κέραμον ὀνομάζουσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης ἂν ἐοίκοι καλεῖν, εἰπὼν ἐν Κωκάλῳ, ‘and not only do contemporary speakers call the τέγος (‘roof’) itself κέραμος, but also Aristophanes (fr. 363) would seem to call it so when he uses [it] in the Cocalus’. Pollux’s purpose in this example is to connect the contemporary use of the word to literary language: he is thus looking at contemporary speakers (οἱ νῦν) in diachrony. To better understand the label οἱ νῦν and its relation to another label, οἱ πολλοίοἱ πολλοί (‘the multitude’), Matthaios (2013, 93–4) suggest looking at 2.169Poll. 2.169:

τὸ δὲ κατὰ μέσην γαστέρα κοῖλον ὀμφαλὸς καὶ μεσομφάλιον, καὶ ὁ περὶ αὐτὸν τόπος γάγγαμον, ἐπεὶ νεύρων ἐστὶ πλέγμα, καθάπερ τὸ δικτυῶδες ὃ νῦν καλεῖται γάγγαμον ἢ ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ σαγήνη.

The cavity in the middle of the belly [is called] ὀμφαλός and μεσομφάλιον (‘navel’), and the place around it γάγγαμον (‘small net’), since it is a tangle of tendons, like the tangle of nets which is now called γάγγαμον, or σαγήνη (‘seine’), as [it is called] by the most.

In this passage, the label οἱ νῦν characterises an educated register, since the noun γάγγαμον can be found in ancient literature (Aesch. Ag. 361), while σαγήνη cannot. It is therefore possible that with οἱ νῦν Pollux meant the cultured speakers of his time, or those who spoke good Greek, in contrast with the rest of contemporary speakers (οἱ πολλοί), who instead use σαγήνη. Nonetheless, neither γάγγαμον nor σαγήνη is rejected.

The label οἱ πολλοί does not seem to have been used univocally by Pollux (Bussès 2011, 37–9; Matthaios 2013, 95–105). In 3.159Poll. 3.159, for instance, πολλοί simply implies the most common use, from which Demosthenes deviates: ξενίζειν παρὰ μὲν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἑστιᾶν, παρὰ δὲ Δημοσθένει τὸ τῇ φωνῇ ξενιζούσῃ χρῆσθαι, ‘ξενίζειν in most [authors means] ‘to receive someone’, but in Demosthenes (52.18) it [means] ‘to use a foreign language’’. Similar occurrences, in which Pollux uses οἱ πολλοί to mark the common usage against the one characteristic of a particular literary genre, such as Comedy, are found in 6.9Poll. 6.9 and 7.69Poll. 7.69. But there are many cases in which Pollux does not accept the word used by the πολλοί. An example:

2.75–6Poll. 2.75–6: ἡ γὰρ ὀδμὴ καὶ εὐοδμία δοκεῖ μὲν τοῖς πολλοῖς εἶναι καλὰ τὰ ὀνόματα, ἔστι δὲ ποιητικά, ἐν δὲ τοῖς καταλογάδην Ἰωνικὰ καὶ Αἰολικά.

ὀδμή (‘smell’) and εὐοδμία (‘perfume’) seem to be good nouns to most people, but they are poetic, and when used in prose [they are] Ionic and Aeolic.

Pollux’s rejection of these two words, which the common people evidently found appropriate, is based on the criterion that they are poetic and used only in Ionic or Aeolic prose: ὀσμή and εὐοσμία should be preferred (on ὀσμή, see AGP vol. 2, Phonology; Favi, forthcoming). In two other examples, the word used by the πολλοί is not approved by Pollux, and in both cases this is due to the fact that such a word is post-classical (see entry ἐνδoμενία):

2.12–3Poll. 2.12–3: τὴν δὲ τοιαύτην κατασκευὴν ἐνδομενίαν οἱ πολλοὶ καλοῦσιν· ἐγὼ δὲ οὐκ ἐπαινῶ μὲν τοὔνομα, μηνύω δέ, ὅστις εἰπὼν αὐτὸ ἀπολογεῖσθαι βούλοιτο ὡς ἔστιν ἔν τινι βιβλίῳ, ὅτι ἐν Ὀλυμπιάδος ἀπογραφῇ [...] οὕτως ἐγγέγραπται.

Common people call such equipment (i.e. household stuff) ἐνδομενία. I, however, do not approve of the word, though I make known – in case someone who uses it wishes to excuse it because it is attested in some written source – that it is found written in a register of an Olympiad. (Transl. Tribulato 2021a).

6.44Poll. 6.44: τὴν μέντοι ὑπὸ πλήθους τροφῆς δυσχέρειαν, ἐκ τοῦ μὴ πέψαι (b : τρῖψαι Ad) τὰ σιτία, ἀπεψίαν μὲν οἱ πολλοί, σὺ δ’ ὀξυρεγμίαν ἂν λέγοις.

The multitude calls ἀπεψία (‘indigestion’) the troublesome condition following a large meal, because the food is not digested, but you could say ὀξυρεγμία.

The label οἱ ἰδιῶταιοἱ ἰδιῶται and the relative adjective ἰδιωτικός (Bussès 2011, 38–41; Matthaios 2013, 105–14) always have a negative connotation in the Onomasticon. Suffice it to mention a few cases:

1.114Poll. 1.114: ἐρεῖς δὲ καὶ ‘διατοιχεῖν ἔδει.’ τὸ γὰρ ἀνατοιχεῖν ἰδιωτικόν.

[For expressions concerning sailing] you will also use ‘it was necessary to move to the other side’; for ἀνατοιχεῖν is ἰδιωτικόν (‘unsophisticated’). (Transl. Tribulato 2021b).

The verb ἀνατοιχεῖν is considered inadvisable and typical of ἰδιῶται, just as in the rest of Atticist lexicography, i.e. Phryn. PS 62.1–3Phryn. PS 62.1–3 and Phryn. Ecl. 132Phryn. Ecl. 132; see entry ἀνατοιχέω, διατοιχέω. A similar agreement between Phrynichus’ and Pollux’s opinion is found in 2.139Poll. 2.139:

ἡ δὲ μασχάλη ὑπὸ μὲν τῶν ἰδιωτῶν καλεῖται μάλη, ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν Ἀττικῶν οὐχί, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὑπὸ αὐτῇ φερόμενον ὑπὸ μάλης φέρεσθαι λέγουσιν.

The μασχάλη (‘armpit’) is called μάλη by the ἰδιῶται, but not by the Attic speakers. Nevertheless, they say that what is brought under it is ‘brought ὑπὸ μάλης’.

Phrynichus’ opinion in Ecl. 169Phryn. Ecl. 169 is the same, although he speaks in a stricter tone: μάλη οὐκ ἐρεῖς, ὑπὸ μάλης μέντοι, ‘you shall not say μάλη, but [only] ὑπὸ μάλης’. In short, the label ἰδιῶται in Pollux refers to the popular language of his time, and unlike the language of the πολλοί, it is not used in writing and is therefore stylistically inappropriate. Pollux does not approve of it in any way (see Bussès 2011, 41; Matthaios 2013, 114).

When suggesting a word or an expression, Pollux sometimes also indicates, if necessary, that it is characteristic of poetry (Matthaios 2013, 114–7; and also Radici 2016, 203–9), assigning it to the category of ποιηταί or simply labelling it as ποιητικόςποιητικός (or also with the adverb ποιητικῶς). As always, in his descriptive approach, Pollux is careful to provide many synonyms; but when he indicates that a word is poetic, he discourages the reader from using it in prose. There are, however, a few cases in which he approves poetic terms (Matthaios 2013, 116–7; and also Radici 2016): see, for instance, πρυμνήσια (‘stern-cables’, 1.93Poll. 1.93) and λάχνη (‘soft woolly hair’, 2.22Poll. 2.22).

Finally, Pollux uses the term οἱ παλαιοίοἱ παλαιοί (‘the ancients’) to indicate that a word or semantic nuance was typical of the past, without being particularly widespread (see e.g. 2.42Poll. 2.42; 7.64Poll. 7.64; 7.79Poll. 7.79; 10.137Poll. 10.137; cf. Matthaios 2013, 117–24).

There is also room in the Onomasticon for words of foreign origin, especially Persian and Latin (see Bussès 2011, 41–3; Radici 2016, 186–7). For example, in 9.13Poll. 9.13 Pollux admits that οἱ δὲ παράδεισοι, βαρβαρικὸν εἶναι δοκοῦν τοὔνομα ἥκει κατὰ συνήθειαν εἰς χρῆσιν Ἑλληνικήν, ὡς καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ τῶν Περσικῶν, ‘παράδεισοι (‘gardens’) is apparently a barbaric noun, but in accordance with linguistic custom, it has entered Greek usage, as have many other Persian [words]’; on the meaning of χρῆσις and συνήθειασυνήθεια in the Onomasticon, see Valente (2013) and Radici (2016, 179–82). Pollux also labels words of Greek origin as barbaricβάρβαρος: in this second case, however, the term is used to condemn the use of suspect words, not to indicate their origin. Examples are 3.30Poll. 3.30, ἡ γὰρ συγγενὶς ἐσχάτως βάρβαρον (‘συγγενίς [‘consanguineous’] is utterly barbaric’) and 4.50–1Poll. 4.50–1, σοφιστεία δὲ βάρβαρον (‘σοφιστεία is barbaric’). In the case of συγγενίς, the rejection may be due to morphological reasons, since Pollux prefers the masculine συγγενής; as for σοφιστεία, Pollux’s aversion may be explained by the fact that such a word was not attested in classical Greek literature (see Bussès 2011, 43).

Pollux expresses his opinion on certain terms using a broad and characteristic range of definitions (the most recent and thorough study is Radici 2016). It is not uncommon for Pollux to intervene in the first person, using expressions such as: οὐδέπω ἐντετύχηκα τῷ ὀνόματι (‘I have not yet encountered this noun’, 1.8Poll. 1.8), οὐδὲ τοῦτο προσίεμαι (‘nor do I admit this’, 2.17Poll. 2.7), ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἀρέσκει (‘I do not like it’, 6.185Poll. 6.185), ἐγὼ δὲ οὐκ ἐπαινῶ μὲν τοὔνομα (‘I do not praise this noun’, 10.12Poll. 10.12), οὐκ ἀποδέχομαι τὸ ὄνομα (‘I do not accept this noun’, 10.21Poll. 10.21), οὐ μέμνημαι παρά τινι εὑρών (‘I do not remember finding [them] in any [author]’, 10.83Poll. 10.83). To recommend a word or an expression to the reader, Pollux usually employs some standard phrases (although it is always possible that such standardisation is due to the epitome), such as ἐρεῖς (‘you shall say’), εἴποις ἄν or εἴποι τις (‘you/one could say’); he never uses the imperative.

For Pollux a word can be praised as καλόνκαλός (e.g. 3.98Poll. 3.98: καλὸν δ’ ὄνομα ἀπὸ τούτου τὸ γάνος, ‘from this γάνος is a proper noun’); he uses the comparatives κάλλιον, ἄμεινον, and βέλτιον when he compares a word with less suitable terms, as in the following case:

3.51Poll. 3.51: ἕποιτο δ’ ἂν τούτοις πολίτης· ὁ γὰρ συμπολίτης οὐ δόκιμον […], βελτίω δ’ ἀστός […].

To these [one can add] πολίτης (‘citizen’), for συμπολίτης is not approved […], ἀστός (‘townsman’) is better […].

On the other hand, κακός is very rare in the Onomasticon and is found only as a comparative (see Bussès 2011, 55). The adjective ἀνεκτόςἀνεκτός (‘tolerable’) is characteristic of Pollux’s terminology. A word may be tolerable (e.g. 9.142Poll. 9.142: ὑπαγωγὴ γὰρ καὶ προσαγωγὴ ἀνεκτά, ‘for ὑπαγωγή [‘retreat’] and προσαγωγή [‘attack’] are tolerable’), but more often it is not tolerable (e.g. 3.112Poll. 3.112: ὁ γὰρ κίμβιξ καὶ κυμινοπρίστης οὐκ ἀνεκτά, ‘κίμβιξ [‘skinflint’] and κυμινοπρίστης [‘cumin-splitter’] are not tolerable’). In other cases, ἀνεκτός is used for dubious usages, as in 6.175Poll. 6.175: τὸ γὰρ φυράδην καὶ ῥύδην οὐκ οἶδα εἰ ἀνεκτά, ‘φυράδην [‘carried along’?] and ῥύδην [‘abundantly’]: I do not know if they are tolerable’). As the choice of the term suggests, the fact that a word is ἀνεκτός does not necessarily mean that Pollux fully agrees with its use in Atticist prose.

By βίαιοςβίαιος and βιάζομαι, Pollux means that the use of a term is acceptable to him even if he find it to be somewhat strained and ultimately dislikes it, though he does not openly reject it. To understand the meaning of this expression in his terminology, one could, with due caution, refer to Pollux himself when, in 8.7Poll. 8.7, he deals with the legal terms ἄνομον, πάρανομον, βίαιον (‘lawless, unlawful, forcible’) and ἀνομεῖν, παρανομεῖν, βιάζεσθαι (‘to act lawlessly, to transgress the law, to force’). He associates the terms βίαιος and βιάζομαι with transgressing, acting against the law, so one might speculate that, when applied to language, they denote a usage that deviates from the norm, i.e. the norm of good Attic Greek. Nevertheless, it is difficult to clearly define what βίαιος means, since Pollux uses it inconsistently in using it: this label could mark a word belonging to the oral tradition (see Bussès 2011, 59–61; Conti Bizzarro 2018, 71). Here are some examples:

1.21Poll. 1.21: τὸ γὰρ φιλόθεος βίαιον.

For φιλόθεος (‘god-loving’) is forced.

7.133Poll. 7.133: καὶ ὕφανσιν δ’ ἂν εἴποις βιαζόμενος, ἐπεὶ Πλάτων εἴρηκε ‘βασιλικῆς ξυνυφάνσεως.’

You could also says ὕφανσις (‘weaving’), forcing [the language?], given that Plato said βασιλικῆς ξυνυφάνσεως (‘kingly weaving’) (Plt. 310e).

9.143Poll. 9.143: βιαιότερον γὰρ ὁ ἀθριοισμός.

ἀθριοισμός (‘gathering’) is rather forced.

An adjective used in several cases to proscribe a word is πονηρόςπονηρός, as in 3.97–8Poll. 3.97–8: τὰ γὰρ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιρρήματα πονηρά, ‘adverbs [derived] from the others are bad’, or 3.133Poll. 3.133. This adjective can also be reinforced, as in 3.58Poll. 3.58: παμπόνηροι δ’ οἱ Θεοπόμπου τοῦ συγγραφέως ἀποπολῖται καὶ ἀφέταιροι καὶ ἀπαθηναῖοι, ‘[the terms] ἀποπολῖται, ἀφέταιροι, and ἀπαθηναῖοι [used by] the historian Theopompus are utterly bad’, or 3.114Poll. 3.114: ῥήματα δ’ ἀπὸ μὲν τῶν οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν παμπόνηρα, ‘verbs [derived] from some of them do not exist, [those derived] from some others are utterly bad’. Also typical of Pollux is μοχθηρόςμοχθηρός (Radici 2016, 195–7; Conti Bizzarro 2018, 9–16), which denotes a word of poor quality, either because it is ‘laborious, difficult’ or ‘long and rare’ (Bussès 2011, 59). The term seems to apply to compounds that are not easy to understand, such as οὐλοκίκιννος (‘having close ringlets’) and στραβολοκόμη (‘curly-headed’), both in 2.23Poll. 2.23. Other adjectives used by Pollux to mark a word are δύσφθεγκτοςδύσφθεγκτος (‘hard to utter’), δυσχερήςδυσχερής (‘unpleasant to hear’), σκληρόςσκληρός (‘harsh’), and τραχύςτραχύς (‘rough’). These adjectives share the criterion of euphonyEuphony, which is indeed very important in Pollux’s evaluation of language (see Conti Bizzarro 2018, 17–39; 93–5; 113–5). The unsuitability of a word can also be attributed to its being εὐτελήςεὐτελής (‘cheap’, see Conti Bizzarro 2018, 41–70), φαῦλοςφαῦλος (‘trivial’), or even φορτικόςφορτικός (‘coarse’, see Conti Bizzarro 2018, 83–6).

The meaning of ἀμφίβολοςἀμφίβολος (‘ambiguous’) is generally negative (see Bussès 2011, 45–6; Radici 2016, 215–6; Chronopoulos 2020). If the meaning of a word is ambiguous and raises doubts, Pollux does not recommend it. See for example:

3.76Poll. 3.76: παιδίσκην δὲ τὴν θεραπαινίδα Λυσίας ὠνόμασεν, εἰ μὴ ἀμφίβολόν ἐστι, πότερον ἡλικίας τοὔνομα ἢ τύχης.

Lysias (fr. 188 Carey) called the handmaid παιδίσκη, although it is ambiguous whether the name [derives] from age or social status.

5.126Poll. 5.126: ἡ γὰρ νόμισις σκληρότερόν τε καὶ ἀμφίβολον.

Since νόμισις (‘belief’) is rather harsh and ambiguous.

6.187Poll. 6.187: λέγοιτο δ’ ἂν ἐπὶ τούτων καὶ τὸ ἀμείβεσθαι. ἀμφίβολος δ’ ἡ ἀμοιβή· ἔστι μὲν γὰρ παρ’ Ἀρχιλόχῳ καὶ παρ’ Εὐριπίδῃ ἐν Ὀρέστῃ, τὸ δὲ παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ ‘σοὶ δ’ ἄξιον ἔσται ἀμοιβῆς’ καὶ παρὰ Πλάτωνι ἐν Συμποσίῳ οὐ σαφές.

In this regard, one could also say ἀμείβεσθαι (‘to give in exchange’). For ἀμοιβή is ambiguous. It is found in Archilochus (iamb. adesp. 35.14) and in Euripides’ Orestes (467) , but ‘it will bring you its worth in return’ in Homer (Od. 1.318) and [the use of the word] in Plato’s Symposium (202e.5) is not clear.

On the other hand, there is a case where Pollux accepts a noun even though it might be ambiguous in some authors: παροψίδες (‘side-dish’ or ‘container’). The use of παροψίδες for containers is proscribed by Phrynichus (PS 103.10–1Phryn. PS 103.10–1, Ecl. 147Phryn. Ecl. 147; see entry παροψίς), but Pollux gives the word a chance. First, he notes that Metagenes may have used it for a tool rather than the dish, but the expression – he says – is ambiguous. This ambiguity is resolved by a second quotation, from Antiphanes, which leaves no room for doubt.

10.87–8Poll. 10.87–8: τὰς δὲ παροψίδας, ἡ μὲν πλείστη χρῆσις ἐλέγχει τοὔνομα ἐπὶ μάζης ἢ ζωμοῦ τινὸς ἢ ἐδέσματος εὐτελοῦς, ὃ ἔστι παροψήσασθαι, τεθέν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ κἀπὶ τὸ ἀγγεῖον ἑλκτέον τὴν κλῆσιν [...] τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῷ Μεταγένους Φιλοθύτῃ ‘ὡς ἄν | πολλαῖσι παροψίσι καὶ καιναῖς εὐωχήσω τὸ θέατρον’ οἶδ’ ὅτι ἔστιν ἀμφίβολον· τὸ δὲ ἐν τῇ Ἀντιφάνους Βοιωτίᾳ σαφέστατα ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀγγείου ἐστὶν εἰρημένον ‘καλέσας τε παρατίθησιν ἐν παροψίσιν | βολβούς’.

Common usage recognises that the word is applied to a small bread loaf, some sauce or cheap food – that is ‘to eat side-dishes’; but the name can also be applied to a container. [...] I am aware that in the Philothytes by Metagenes [the line] ‘so that | with many and fresh side-dishes I sumptuously entertain the theatre’ (fr. 15) is ambiguous, but in the Boeotia by Antiphanes (fr. 61) it is most clearly used for a container: ‘after calling | he serves tassel hyacinths in containers’.

Bibliography

Amaraschi, F. (2015). ‘Note su alcuni lemmi giuridici di Polluce VIII’. Erga-Logoi 3, 167–81.

Avotins, I. (1975). ‘The Holders of the Chairs of Rhetoric at Athens’. HSCPh 79, 313–24.

Bapp, C. A. (1885). ‘De fontibus quibus Athenaeus in rebus musicis lyricisque enarrandis usus sit’. Leipziger Studien zur class. Philol. 8, 85–160.

Bearzot, C. (2007). ‘I nomophylakes in due lemmi di Polluce (VIII 94 νομοφύλακες e VIII 102 οἱ ἔνδεκα)’. Bearzot, C.; Landucci, F.; Zecchini, G. (eds.), L’Onomasticon di Giulio Polluce tra lessicografia e antiquaria. Milan, 43–67.

Bekker, I. (1846). Iulii Pollucis Onomasticon. Berlin.

Benuzzi, F. (2023). Didymus Alexandrinus. The Fragments of the Commentaries on Comedy. Leiden, Boston.

Bethe, E. (1895). ‘Die Überlieferung des Onomastikon des Julius Pollux’. Nachrichten von der königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Göttingen.

Bethe, E. (1917). ‘Iulius (n. 398)’. RE 10.1, 774–9.

Bethe, E. (1900–1937). Pollucis Onomasticon. 3 vols. Stuttgart.

Bettalli, M. (2007). ‘I militaria in Polluce’. Bearzot, C.; Landucci, F.; Zecchini, G. (eds.), L’Onomasticon di Giulio Polluce tra lessicografia e antiquaria. Milan, 145–54.

Bianconi, D. (2013). ‘Un nuovo codice appartenuto a Manuele Crisolora’. S&T 11, 375–86.

Billerbeck, M.; Clerc, D. (2018). ‘Epaphroditus’. Montanari, F.; Montana, F.; Pagani, L. (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2451-9278_Epaphroditus. Last accessed on 10 March 2024.

Broggiato, M. (2024). ‘Skeuographikos’. Eratosthenica. URL: https://www.eratosthenica.it/search.php?searchworks=Skeuographikos. Last accessed on 9 July 2024.

Bussès, S. (2011). Marcatori e criteri di estetica in Polluce. La dinamica della scelta lessicografica. Lecce.

Casevitz, M. (2021). ‘Sur les termes de jeu: compléments d’histoire des mots’. Kentron 36, 209–12.

Cavarzeran, J. (2022). ‘Polluce in età paleologa. Gli excerpta del Marc. gr. Z 490 e del Vat. gr. 904’. JÖByz 72, 125–162.

Cavarzeran, J. (forthcoming). The Textual Tradition of Pollux’s Onomasticon. Studies Towards a New Edition. Berlin, Boston.

Chiron, P. (2013). ‘Le dimension rhétorique de l’Onomasticon’. Mauduit, C. (ed.). L'Onomasticon de Pollux. Aspects culturels, rhétoriques et lexicographiques. Paris, 39–65.

Chronopoulos, S. (2016a). ‘Logical Categories and Parts of Speech as Structuring Devices in Pollux’ Onomasticon’. [Paper given at the CHS biannual research symposium – Fall 2016]; now in CHS Research Bulletin 5, no. 1 (2016) at https://research-bulletin.chs.harvard.edu/2017/04/17/pollux-onomasticon/.

Chronopoulos, S. (2016b). ‘Combining Lexicographic and Encyclopedic Sources in a Greek Thesaurus of the 2nd cent. CE’. Talks at the 8th German-Israeli Frontiers of Humanities Symposium 2016, Witnessing and Knowing: Challenging Re/Sources of Knowledge (Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung, Berlin, 4-7 September 2016), 32–45.

Chronopoulos, S. (2020). ‘The technical term ‘amphibolon’ in Pollux’s Onomasticon’. TiC 12, 362–97.

Cirone, A. (2018). ‘‘Ἴδια ὀνόματα’. Oggetti e Realien nel libro X dell’Onomasticon di Giulio Polluce’. Cirone, A.; Radici, L. (eds.), Commentaria Polluciana. Pisa, Rome.

Conti Bizzarro, F. (2004). ‘Nell’officina di Polluce’. Abbamonte, G.; Conti Bizzarro, F.; Spina, L. (eds.), L’ultima parola. L’analisi dei testi. Teorie e pratiche nell‘antichità greca e latina. Naples, 75–83.

Conti Bizzarro, F. (2014). ‘Alcune osservazioni di critica della lingua in Polluce’. Commentaria classica 1, 39–53.

Conti Bizzarro, F. (2018). Giulio Polluce e la critica della lingua greca. Alessandria.

Conti Bizzarro, F. (2021). ‘Un excerptum dell’Onomasticon di Giulio Polluce’. Eikasmos 32, 369–79.

Daremberg, C.; Ruelle, C. É. (1879). Oeuvres de Rufus d’Éphèse. Paris, 168–85.

Degani, E. (1995). ‘La lessicografia’. Cambiano, G.; Canfora, L.; Lanza, D. (eds.), Lo spazio letterario della Grecia Antica. Vol. 3: La ricezione e l’attualizzazione del testo. Rome, 505–27.

Dettori, E. (2022). ‘Meride’. Montanari, F.; Montana, F.; Pagani, L. (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2451-9278_Moeris_it. Last accessed on 11 December 2022.

Dickey, E. (2007). Ancient Greek Scholarship. A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. Oxford.

Dindorf, W. (1824). Iulii Pollucis Onomasticon. 2 vols. Leipzig.

Favi, F. (2022). ‘A Contribution to the Study of P.Oxy. 1803 (Atticist Lexicon)’. GRBS 62, 309–27.

Favi, F. (forthcoming). Il testo di Senofonte e la lessicografia atticista. SemRom.

Hall, J. (1981). Lucian’s Satire. New York.

Horváth, L. (1997). The ‘Nachleben’ of Hyperides. [PhD Dissertation] University College London.

Huitink, L.; Rood, T. (2019). Xenophon. Anabasis III. Cambridge.

Ippolito, A. (2005). ‘Tryphon [2]’. Montanari, F.; Montana, F.; Pagani, L. (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2451-9278_Tryphon_2. Last accessed on 10 March 2024.

Ippolito, A. (2006). ‘Iubas [2] II’. Montanari, F.; Montana, F.; Pagani, L. (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2451-9278_Iubas_1_II. Last accessed on 10 March 2024.

Jones, C. P. (1972). ‘Two enemies of Lucian’. GBRS 13, 475–87.

Jones, C. P. (1986). Culture and Society in Lucian. Cambridge, MA, London.

König, J. (2016). ‘Re-reading Pollux. Encyclopaedic Structure and Athletic Culture in Onomasticon Book 3’. CQ 66, 298–315.

Landucci, F. (2007). ‘La Macedonia e la nascita dell’Ellenismo nell’Onomasticon di Polluce’. Bearzot, C.; Landucci, F.; Zecchini, G. (eds.), L’Onomasticon di Giulio Polluce tra lessicografia e antiquaria. Milan, 155–69.

Latte, K. (1925). ‘Glossographika’. Philologus 80, 136–74.

Maffi, A. (2007). ‘L’Onomasticon di Polluce come fonte di diritto attico’. Bearzot, C.; Landucci, F.; Zecchini, G. (eds.), L’Onomasticon di Giulio Polluce tra lessicografia e antiquaria. Milan, 29–42.

Manetti, D. (2023). ‘Rufus [1]’. Montanari, F.; Montana, F.; Pagani, L. (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2451-9278_Rufus_1_it. Last accessed on 10 March 2024.

Matthaios, S. (2013). ‘Pollux’ Onomastikon im Kontext der attizistischen Lexikographie. Gruppen ‘anonymer Sprecher’ und ihre Stellung in der Sprachgeschichte und Stilistik’. Maudit, C. (ed.), L’Onomasticon de Pollux. Aspects culturels, rhétoriques et lexicographiques. Paris, 67–140.

Matthaios, S. (2015). ‘Greek Scholarship in the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity’. Montanari, F.; Matthaios, S.; Rengakos, A. (eds.), Brill’s companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship. 2 vols. Leiden, Boston, 184–296.

Maudit, C.; Moretti, J.-C. (2010). ‘Pollux, un lexicographe au théâtre’. REG 123, 521–41.

Münscher, K. (1920). Xenophon in der griechisch-römischen Literatur. Leipzig.

Naechster, M. (1908). De Pollucis et Phrynichi controversiis. Leipzig.

Nesselrath, H.-G. (1990). Die attische Mittlere Komödie. Ihre Stellung in der antiken Literaturkritik und Literaturgeschichte. Berlin, New York.

Olson, S. D. (2022). ‘Pollux on the Anatomy of the Spine (Onom. 2.44–5, 130–2, 178–80) and the Modern Lexica’. Apeiron 55, 587–600.

Parise, N. (2007). ‘Polluce e le origini della moneta’. Bearzot C.; Landucci, F.; Zecchini, G. (eds.), L’Onomasticon di Giulio Polluce. Tra lessicografia e antiquaria. Milan, 141–4.

Pratchett, W. K. (1953). ‘The Attic Stelai. Part I’. Hesperia 22, 225–99.

Privitera, A. (2018). Le citazioni dei tragici nell’Onomasticon di Polluce. Libri I, II, III, IV. [PhD dissertation] Università degli studi di Palermo.

Radici, L. (2016). ‘Terminologia critica dell’estetica delle parole nell’Onomasticon di Polluce. Testi e commenti’. BollClass 37–8, 171–222.

Radici, L. (2018). ‘Una conversazione sui βιβλία’. Cirone, A.; Radici, L. (eds.), Commentaria Polluciana. Pisa, Rome, 11–45.

Radici Colace, P. (2013). ‘Polluce nell’Onomasticon’. Mauduit, C. (ed.). L’Onomasticon de Pollux. Aspects culturels, rhétoriques et lexicographiques. Paris, 25–37.

Regali, M. (2007). ‘Gorgias [2]’. Montanari, F.; Montana, F.; Pagani, L. (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2451-9278_Gorgias_2_it. Last accessed on 10 March 2024.

Rohde, E. (1870). De Julii Pollucis in apparatu scanico enarrando fontibus. Leipzig.

Sgobbi, A. (2004). ‘Lingua e stile di Senofonte nel giudizio degli antichi’. Daverio Rocchi, D.; Cavalli, M. (eds.), Il Peloponneso di Senofonte. Milan, 219–55.

Sideras, A. (1994). ‘Rufus von Ephesos und sein Werk im Rahmen der antiken Medizin’. ANRW 2, 1077–253.

Slater, W. J. (1977). ‘Review of Fischer, E. Die Ekloge des Phrynichos (Berlin, New York 1974)’. Gnomon 49, 258–62.

Slater, W. J. (1986). Aristophanis Byzantii fragmenta. Berlin, New York.

Sonnino, M. (2014). ‘I frammenti della commedia greca citati da Prisciano e la fonte del lessico sintattico del libro XVIII dell’Ars’. Martorelli, L. (ed.), Greco antico nell’Occidente Carolingio. Zurich, New York, 163–204.

Stefec, R. (2013). ‘Die Überlieferung der Deklamationen Polemons’. Römische historische Mitteilungen 55, 99–154.

Strecker, K. (1884). De Lycophrone Euphronio Eratosthene comicorum interpretibus. Greifswald.

Strobel, C. (2005). ‘The Lexicographer of the Second Sophistic as Collector of Words, Quotations and Knowledge’. Piccione, R. M.; Perkams, M. (eds.), Selecta Colligere II. Alessandria, 131–57.

Strobel, C. (2011). Studies in Atticistic Lexica of the Second and Third Centuries AD. [PhD dissertation] University of Oxford.

Theodoridis, C. (1976). ‘Die Hermokopideninschriften als Quelle der Demioprata im 10. Buch des Pollux’. ZPE 23, 63–73.

Tosi, R. (1988). Studi sulla tradizione indiretta dei classici greci. Bologna.

Tosi, R. (1994). ‘La lessicografia e la paremiografia in età alessandrina ed il loro sviluppo successivo’. Montanari, F. (ed.), La philologie grecque à l’époque hellénistique et romaine, Vandoeuvres-Genéve 16-21 août 1993. Geneva, 143–97.

Tosi, R. (1999). ‘Iulius Pollux [IV 17]’. Der Neue Pauly 6, 51–3.

Tosi, R. (2007). ‘Polluce. Struttura onomastica e tradizione lessicografica’. Bearzot C. ; Landucci, F. ; Zecchini, G. (eds.), L’Onomasticon di Giulio Polluce. Tra lessicografia e antiquaria. Milan, 3–16.

Tosi, R. (2022). ‘Iulius [2] Pollux’. Montanari, F.; Montana, F.; Pagani, L. (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2451-9278_Iulius_2_Pollux_it. Last accessed on 10 March 2024.

Tribulato, O. (2014). ‘Not even Menander Would Use This Word!: Perceptions of Menander’s Language in Greek Lexicography’. Sommerstein, A. H. (ed.), Menander in Contexts. New York, 199–214.

Tribulato, O. (2016). ‘Herodotus’ Reception in Ancient Greek Lexicography and Grammar. From the Hellenistic to the Imperial Age’. Priestley, J.; Zali, V. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Herodotus in Antiquity and Beyond. Leiden, Boston, 169–92.

Tribulato, O. (2018). ‘Le epistole prefatorie dell’Onomasticon di Polluce. Frammenti di un discorso autoriale’. Lexis 36, 247–83.

Tribulato, O. (2019). ‘Two Notes on the Text of Pollux X 1.1‒5 Bethe’. Philologus 163, 237–49.

Tribulato, O. (2021a). ‘ἐνδoμενία (Phryn. Ecl. 310, Poll. 10.12–3)’. Tribulato, O. (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2021/01/031.

Tribulato, O. (2021b). ‘ἀνατοιχέω, διατοιχέω (Phryn. PS 62.1–3, Phryn. Ecl. 132, Antiatt. δ 28, Poll. 1.114)’. Tribulato, O. (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2021/01/000.

Tuci, P. A. (2007a). ‘Polluce VIII 104 e i funzionari addetti al controllo della partecipazione assembleare’. Bearzot, C.; Landucci, F.; Zecchini, G. (eds.), L’Onomasticon di Giulio Polluce tra lessicografia e antiquaria. Milan, 103–37.

Tuci, P. A. (2007b). ‘Boulé e assemblee ateniesi in Polluce, Onomasticon VIII’. Bearzot, C.; Landucci, F.; Zecchini, G. (eds.), L’Onomasticon di Giulio Polluce tra lessicografia e antiquaria. Milan, 69–102.

Valente, S. (2013). ‘Osservazioni su συνήθεια e χρῆσις nell’Onomastico di Polluce’. Maudit, C. (ed.), L’Onomasticon de Pollux: aspects culturels, rhétoriques et lexicographiques. Paris, 67–140.

Valente, S. (2015). The Antiatticist. Berlin, Boston.

Vespa, M. (2022). ‘Knucklebone faces and throws: play, rules, and rhetorical discourse in Julius Pollux’. Mnemosyne 75, 793–810.

Zadorojnyi, A. V. (2023). ‘Horses for Courses. Plato’s Vocabulary and Authority in the Onomasticon’. BICS 66, 48–57.

Zecchini, G. (2007). ‘Polluce e la politica culturale di Commodo’. Bearzot C.; Landucci, F.; Zecchini, G. (eds.), L’Onomasticon di Giulio Polluce. Tra lessicografia e antiquaria. Milan, 17–26.

Zweimüller, S. (2008). Lukian Rhetorum praeceptor. Einleitung, Text und Kommentar. Göttingen.

CITE THIS

Jacopo Cavarzeran, 'Iulius Pollux, Ὀνομαστικόν (Onomasticon)', in Olga Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2974-8240/2024/02/016

ABSTRACT

This article presents an overview of Iulius Pollux’ Onomasticon, addressing its transmission, structure, sources, evaluative terminology, and views of the canon of classical authors.