BMCR 2008.11.28, Cinzia Bearzot, L'Onomasticon di Giulio Polluce

Cinzia Bearzot, Franca Landucci, Giuseppe Zecchini (ed.), L'Onomasticon
di Giulio Polluce. Tra lessicografia e antiquaria. Contributi di storia
antica, 5.  Milano:  Vita e Pensiero, 2007.  Pp. viii, 173.  ISBN
978-88-343-1496-8.  EUR 16.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Philip Rance, Berlin ([email protected])
Word count:  4374 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-11-28.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2008/11/20081128.html
-------------------------------

In recent years the Second Sophistic has become one of the fastest
growing areas of classical scholarship, evidenced in some excellent
general syntheses, as well as conference proceedings and monographs on
authors who have rarely, if ever, enjoyed such attention.[[1]] The
collaborative volume under review extends this interest to Julius
Pollux and his sole surviving work, the Onomasticon, and is, to my
knowledge, a unique attempt at a literary, cultural and historiographic
"inquadramento" of an ancient lexicographer.

The editors briefly introduce and justify their project (vii-viii).
Julius Pollux was professor of rhetoric at Athens and one of the most
significant intellectuals of the later second century, the apogee of
Hellenism under the Roman Empire. His major work, the Onomasticon, is
the oldest specimen of encyclopaedism transmitted from antiquity and,
along with Harpocration's Lexicon in decem oratores, one of two
surviving lexical works of the Antonine era (discounting other
abridgements and fragments). Nevertheless, since the completion of
Erich Bethe's critical edition in 1937,[[2]] the Onomasticon has
attracted little scholarly interest. This deficiency inspired a seminar
programme in 2005/6, the aim of which was to address the lacuna. The
present volume is the outcome. It opens with two contextual essays
(relazioni-quadro) which seek to locate Pollux in his world, the first
based on literary and intellectual considerations; the second on
aspects of political culture. In fact, both cover some of the same
territory, and thus avoid perpetuating the two 'artificially polarised
perspectives' that Anderson identified in modern scholarship on the
Second Sophistic.[[3]] There follow seven chapters on selected sections
or lemmata in the Onomasticon which aim to furnish illustrative
examples (esempi di commenti) of Pollux's methodology and/or value as a
historical source. These specialised studies are divided into two
groups. The first considers information relating to the institutions
and laws of classical Athens. The second examines more general themes
to illustrate Pollux's evaluative criteria -- the chosen topics are
numismatics and militaria, with a concluding assessment of Pollux's
cultural and historical horizons. The editors lay no claim to an
exhaustive treatment and observe that other subjects could have
received attention (e.g., the rich section on music in IV), but they
hope to have signalled the most important issues and that the volume
will serve as both an up-to-date work of reference and a stimulus to
further research. In view of these objectives, this short editorial
preface might have benefited from a definition of the major questions
about Pollux and his work, and an overview of the general approach that
guided the seminars/papers; a summary of major trends in scholarship
would also have been helpful. The diversity, autonomy and technical
character of the essays is reflected in the length of this review.

Section 1: Polluce nella cultura del suo tempo.

Renzo Tosi, 'Polluce: struttura onomastica e tradizione lessicografica'
(3-16).

Tosi observes that Pollux's Onomasticon is the only surviving Greek
lexical work with an onomastic structure, that is to say, not an
alphabetic sequence of lemmata but topical assemblages of synonyms or
termini technici. A brief review of Pollux's antecedents demonstrates
that the onomastic format was ancient and probably more typical of the
earlier tradition. There follows a glance at Pollux's sources and
transmission. The Onomasticon has not survived in its original form;
all manuscripts derive from four incomplete exemplars which descend
from a common hyparchetype, an epitome owned and interpolated by
Arethas, Archbishop of Caesarea (ca. 900-932). Tosi follows the
traditional view that the Onomasticon testifies to a controversy
between the rigid linguistic purism of the hyperatticist Phrynichus and
the more relaxed Atticism favoured by Pollux. Accordingly, the choice
of an onomastic format in itself articulates this rivalry, since an
alphabetic arrangement is better suited to the imposition of a puristic
agenda. Pollux also sponsors a broader spectrum of authors (e.g. New
Comedy, especially Menander, although deemed inferior to Old Comedy, is
nonetheless valid) and registers words from other literary dialects --
Doric, Ionic, Aeolian. Tosi charts examples of the rival approaches
using fragmentary glosses of Phrynichus, as well as Atticizing glosses
in the Lexicon of Oros, written in the fifth century in refutation of
Phrynichus.[[4]] In addition, Pollux's Onomasticon is important because
it contains numerous historical Realien on diverse aspects of antiquity
and serves as a copious repository of loci classici, albeit often as
decontextualised and unacknowledged citations. Editors of potential
fragments embedded in the Onomasticon should proceed with caution,
since instances where extant sources permit comparison reveal that
lemmatization and/or the onomastic format have typically reconfigured
the quoted text, though a degree of regularity in Pollux's methodology
can at least alert readers to likely changes and suggests strategies
for identifying where Pollux may be the vehicle for an indirect
tradition. Tosi expertly deploys a series of examples which demonstrate
the difficulties and potential hazards of mining Pollux for fragments.

Giuseppe Zecchini, 'Polluce la politica culturale di Commodo' (17-26).

Zecchini sets out to examine the politico-cultural context to Commodus'
choice of Pollux instead of Phrynichus for the imperial chair of
rhetoric at Athens in 178. There was already a well-established
affinity between Hellenic culture and imperial power over and above the
personal tastes and connections of individual philhellene emperors.
Against this background Zecchini traces a tale of academic rivalry.
Phrynichus dedicated his Eclogae (<greek>*)Eklogh\ *)Attikw=n r(hma/twn
kai\ o)noma/twn</greek>) to Cornelianus, an imperial ab epistulis
graecis, presumably in expectation of preferment, but in 176-7 he
raised his sights and addressed his Praeparatio Sophistica to Commodus,
who had recently (Nov. 176) become co-emperor with responsibility for
domestic governance. But in 178 the prize went to Pollux. Zecchini
identifies the immediate cause of Pollux's promotion as an Epithalamium
delivered at the wedding of Commodus and Bruttia Crispina in 177 (Suda
<greek>p</greek> 1951; Philostr. VS 592-3), but he discerns deeper
motives than this occasional piece, namely a concurrence between
certain cultural characteristics of the Onomasticon and a
politico-cultural agenda promoted by Commodus. In contrast to
Phrynichus' intransigent hyperatticism, which drew negative reactions
even in his own day, Pollux's less prescriptive lexical criteria
admitted non-Attic authors, Hellenistic vocabulary and even non-Greek
derivations; thus Pollux was 'un atticista sensible alla cultura
cosmopolita propria degli imperi (allora il persiano, poi il romano) e
all'interazione linguistica' (22). In his desire to assemble specialist
vocabularies, Pollux also made extensive use of technical or
antiquarian treatises ordinarily beyond the pale of the classical
canon, among which Zecchini singles out the lost De Re Equestri by
Simon of Athens; an alleged 'trattato di tactica o di arte del
commando';[[5]] a work on musical instruments; collections of texts
relating to the laws and decrees of Athens; the ps.-Aristotelian
Athenaion Politeia and another 'Constitutione di Atene' by (or
attributed to) Critias, which, following one school of thought,
Zecchini (22-3) identifies as the ps.-Xenophontic Athenaion Politeia.
As evidence of broader cultural and historical horizons Zecchini (23)
draws attention to entries on Mesopotamia (Ctesias) and India
(Theopompus) and on Alexander, though their tiny number might lead
other readers to alternative conclusions.[[6]] Accordingly, Pollux
wished to give his readers a lexical encyclopedia resting on solid
Attic foundations but capable of accommodating 'termini che rispecchino
la multiforme varieta\ cronologica e spaziale delle province elenofone
dell'impero (25).' Zecchini thinks that Pollux's more flexible
linguistic approach aimed to be diffusive and integrative, and 'deriva
da una scelta coerente, quella di rappresentare una cultura nata ad
Atene, ma di li\ irradiantesi per tutta l'ecumene, sostanzialmente
coincidente allora con l'impero romano, e capace di unificarla appunto
nel segno della <greek>paidei/a</greek>...' (24-5). Zecchini suggests
that one can perhaps catch an echo of the same programme in the titles
of two lost orations by Pollux, <greek>*(Rwmai+ko\s lo/gos</greek> and
<greek>Panellh/nios lo/gos</greek>, parallel to but distinct from the
<greek>*(Rw/mhs e)gkw/mion</greek> and <greek>Panaqhnai+ko/s</greek> of
Aelius Aristides, the teacher of Phrynichus. Zecchini suggests that
Pollux's two speeches, like his Onomasticon, probably articulated 'un
programma culturale' in sympathy with 'la visione politico-culturale'
of Commodus, who imitated Hadrian's Athenocentric brand of Hellenism,
but was also a devotee of Heracles, who had spread Hellenic
civilization over the whole oikoumene. Pollux could thus persuade
Commodus that he shared his vision of a paideia that could shape the
politico-cultural elites of the Roman East.

These contextual essays of Tosi and Zecchini are thoughtful and
elegantly written, though one may legitimately question some underlying
historical assumptions. First, it is easy to overplay the rivalry of
Pollux and Phrynichus, as reflected in different lexical ideologies and
alleged professional competition. This model originated in a thesis of
Naechster in 1908[[7]] and has been influential in subsequent
scholarship, but its fragile foundations have been periodically
questioned over the past 30 years and uncertainties in dating the
careers and writings of Pollux and Phrynichus seriously complicate the
traditional chronology; one recent assessment declares 'there is no
real evidence of rivalry' and brands Naechster's whole reconstruction
'in reality a house of cards'.[[8]] Second, the connection Zecchini
draws between Commodus and Pollux calls for further argumentation. I
struggle to envisage Commodus combing through the works of Phrynichus
and Pollux, and deciding that the scope and arrangement of the latter
offered a lexical paideia more in tune with his own alleged
politico-cultural ethos. It is not even clear whether Commodus had
especially philhellene tastes (or at least any more than the many other
emperors who participated in Athenian civic and religious
institutions)[[9]] or whether and how Pollux sought to appeal to them.
That language was a crucial socio-cultural marker is not disputed, but
the contention that a lexical encyclopedia might play a role in
articulating the emperor's politico-cultural vision requires
demonstration or at least an assessment of the intended audience and
purpose of such works (belletristic composition? occasional rhetoric?
conversational cachet?), especially as the objectives of Phrynichus and
Pollux do not seem precisely comparable: the Praeparatio Sophistica was
concerned as much with grammar and style as lexis. Overall, Zecchini is
doubtless correct that Pollux was the more appealing figure, but the
nature and extent of Commodus' interests in this sphere are hard to
gauge: certainly his personal identification with Heracles does not
appear to have anything to do with 'philhellenism' or an inclusive
eastward-looking cultural ideology. Heracles is an ambiguous,
multi-faceted motif, who for Commodus served as a legitimating paradigm
of a superhuman victor, immortal universal saviour and the inaugurator
of a Golden Age, closely associated with the emperor's (very Roman)
gladiatorial interests, an image projected to all parts of the empire
without an especially eastern orientation.[[10]]

Finally, I cannot help but feel that a vital context has been
overlooked: locating Pollux within the broader literary and
intellectual currents of the Second Sophistic. Even if we were to
accept the historicity of rivalry between Phrynichus and Pollux, the
competition of prescriptive expert opinion in the cause of linguistic
purism goes beyond these two authors and culminated in the vast output
of grammarians and lexicographers of the Antonine period.[[11]]
Admittedly their works for the most part survive as textual wreckage,
but something could have been said by way of context concerning, for
example, the so-called Antiatticista, probably one of the targets of
Phrynichus' Eclogae, and broadly akin to Pollux's Onomasticon in the
breadth of its canon.[[12]] Perhaps also worthy of exploration would
have been the hypothesis that the Cornelianus to whom Phrynichus
dedicated the Eclogae was himself the author of the Philetairos now
ascribed to ps.-Aelius Herodianus; certainly Cornelianus had
lexical-grammatical interests on which he had written a work of his own
(Phryn. Ecl. 394).[[13]] Greater clarification of this intellectual
tradition and textual interrelationships might have provided an
enhanced background and firmer foundations for some of the literary,
cultural and political perspectives explored in these chapters.

Le istituzioni Ateniesi nell'Onomasticon.

Alberto Maffi, 'L'Onomasticon di Polluce come fonte di diritto attico'
(29-42).

Maffi brings an expert eye to bear on Onomasticon VIII, long recognised
as an important source for Athenian law. His study aims to examine the
composition and textual history of this section as a whole with a view
to a more accurate evaluation of its individual entries. In this he is
successful and his survey should prove helpful to further research in
this field. In the first part, Maffi considers the concatenation of
terms in VIII 6-81, with a particular interest in the procedural
terminology of different judicial actions, in order to discern what
logical or juridical criteria Pollux followed in the selection and
arrangement of this material, and to establish whether the terms cited
are technical designations for specific procedures or generic
descriptions and non-technical synonyms (favouring the latter view, pp.
32-4). He also identifies omissions and/or losses, and assesses the
evidence for later interpolation and epitomization. In a brief review
of Pollux's possible sources Maffi notes that some of the material
originates from Attic forensic oratory or the Athenaion Politeia; other
lemmata are without explicit citation, but allusions to Theophrastus'
Nomoi and the reforming activity of Demetrius of Phaleron hint at lost
sources. He does not explore Zecchini's inference (p. 24) that Pollux
drew on 'raccolte di testi riguardanti leggi o decreti'. In the second
part, Maffi presents three case studies: the procedure of phasis (VIII
47-9); eisangeleia against a marriage irregularly contracted with a
epikleros (VIII 53); and a type of oath mentioned in Solon's laws (VIII
142). On the authority of Pollux, he offers modifications to existing
scholarship on these three issues, all amply discussed in previous
literature, including by Maffi himself, who demonstrates a fine command
of the bibliography.

Cinzia Bearzot, 'I nomophylakes in due lemmi di Polluce (VIII 94
<greek>nomofu/akes</greek> e VIII 102 <greek>oi( e)/ndeka</greek>
(43-67).

Bearzot provides a detailed examination of two lemmata which refer to
the nomophylakes. VIII 94 (<greek>nomofu/akes</greek>) summarizes a
passage of Philochorus' Atthis, known also from other sources (cf.
FGrHist 328 F64), which describes a board of magistrates called
nomophylakes who regulated legislation in the Athenian ekklesia in the
fourth century. In apparent contrast, the received text of VIII 102
(<greek>oi( e)/ndeka</greek>) describes the nomophylakes as guardians
of the gaol, who were previously styled 'the Eleven' until a change of
nomenclature under Demetrius of Phaleron (317-307 BC). This is a
well-trodden path with a substantial bibliography. Most previous
scholarship has disregarded the testimony of VIII 102, assuming
nomophylakes here to be an error for desmophylakes, and debate has
centred on the date and context of the introduction of the nomophylakes
correctly described at VIII 94. Bearzot's review of the evidence is
occasioned by a recent thesis of Lara O'Sullivan,[[14]] who argued,
inter alia, that the nomophylakes were first introduced in connection
with Ephialtes' reform of the Areopagos (462/1 BC), as alleged by
Philochorus (FGrHist 328 F64b<greek>a</greek> [apud Lex. Cantabr.]),
and, accepting the current text of VIII 102, that a new board of
gaolers called nomophylakes was created by Demetrius of Phaleron as a
replacement for the Eleven. Bearzot seeks to show that 1.) only VIII 94
in fact refers to the nomophylakes, while VIII 102 describes
desmophylakes; 2.) nomophylakes were not a product of Ephialtes'
reforms, but a fourth-century institution; 3. the nomophylakes were
probably established in the 340s BC and their fictive Ephialtic origin
is a case of historical 'retrodazione' which sought to
'democratizzare', and thus render palatable, an innovation whose very
purpose was to limit democratic activity in the ekklesia. Bearzot
presents a coherent argument that is on the whole persuasive, albeit in
part a restatement of traditional views, though one wonders whether the
meagre evidence will ever permit a wholly satisfying solution to this
set of problems.[[15]]

Paolo A. Tuci, 'Boule/ e assemblea ateniensi in Polluce, Onomasticon
VIII' (69-102).

This is the first of Tuci's two papers on the deliberative and
legislative organs of classical Athens. He surveys the most important
passages in Onomasticon VIII concerning the boule and ekklesia,
observing that some are lexicographic in character, others descriptive,
an alternation found also in the notices concerning magistracies and
judicial structures and procedures. His investigation of the sources of
VIII calculates the frequency of genres and authors compared to those
cited by Pollux's contemporaries, Harpocration and Athenaeus. Lack of
explicit citations frequently hampers Quellenforschung, but it is
certain that Pollux drew information from a variety of genres,
including the ps.-Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, scholiographic
tradition, Old Comedy and the Atthidographers. There follows detailed
discussion of selected passages: VIII 95-6 contains information about
the prytanies (pt. 2.1.1); the agenda of the four assemblies held in
each prytany (2.1.2); the epistates of the prytranies and the proedroi
(2.1.3). Tuci demonstrates that in each case the main source is Ath.
Pol., sometimes quoted verbatim, but in other instances, he contends,
supplemented by another source; the argument is more compelling in some
cases than others (see most successfully 2.1.2). The supplementary
source remains unknown and the difficulties of identification are
compounded by the probably epitomized state of the received text. At
VIII 115 (2.2), concerning the length of a prytany, Pollux dispenses
with Ath. Pol. and uses another source, possibly Theophrastus' Nomoi or
Philochorus' Atthis, but in any case demonstrably written post 307/6
BC. Tuci then discusses the sources of two terms at VIII 116:
<greek>e)kklhsi/a su/gklhtos</greek> and <greek>kataklhsi/a</greek>
(2.3), though he admits (100) that the historical value of both entries
remains elusive and neither resolves the many conundra associated with
these topics. From Tuci's analysis emerges a scrupulous and careful
Pollux, disposed to supplement and improve his sources, and concerned
with descriptive accuracy as well lexical peculiarities. Tuci skilfully
combines historical and lexical interests and this paper is among the
more successful in the collection.

Paolo A. Tuci, 'Polluce VIII 104 e i funzionari addetti al controllo
della partecipazione assembleare' (103-137).

Tuci's second paper is devoted to VIII 104, which concerns the
lexiarchoi and syllogeis tou demou (though the latter are not
explicitly named), respectively six- and thirty-man boards responsible
for scrutinising the eligibility of participants in the ekklesia.
Pollux is the earliest literary source for both offices, on which Ath.
Pol. is silent, and VIII 104 acquires particular significance as one of
only two texts to mention the lexiarchoi (cf. also Lexicon Vindobonense
s.v.). Scrutiny of ekklesiastai was crucial to the regular functioning
of Athenian democracy, especially following Pericles' law on
citizenship (451/50 BC) and the introduction of assembly pay (403 BC).
Tuci discusses the sources for these officials and reconstructs the
main features of their duties. In this treatment the focus strays
somewhat from Pollux and rehearses the ancient evidence and scholarly
positions on Athenian voting procedures, on which the bibliography is
already vastand for which Tuci is unavoidably indebted to the work of
Mogens Herman Hansen. The paper nevertheless furnishes some insights
and modifications, including thoughts on the operation of the red-dyed
rope with which idlers in the agora were herded to the Pnyx, and on the
distribution of the misthos ekklesiastikos. With due caution, Tuci
makes a plausible case for the coexistence and cooperation of
lexiarchoi and syllogeis tou demou, at least over a limited period,
against the view that lexiarchoi were a fifth-century board and
syllogeis its fourth-century successor. Tuci concludes with a
thoughtful consideration of the practicalities of checking participants
in the ekklesia, stressing the importance of personal acquaintance
rather than consultation of voting registers (pinax ekklesiastkos), and
drawing intriguing comparisons with modern Italian electoral
procedures.

Altre Prospettive: Presenze e omissioni

Nicola Parise, 'Polluce e le origini della moneta' (141-144).

In this short contribution Pollux's lemmata on both usury (III 85,
112-13) and the divergent traditions concerning the invention of money
(IX 83) prompt a few observations on ancient and modern opinions about
the origin of coinage; the results are rather impressionistic.

Marco Bettalli, 'I militaria in Polluce' (145-154).

Bettalli examines vocabula militaria, chiefly concentrated between I
119 and 180. He surmises that the topic was not especially favoured by
Pollux on the grounds that, even though individual listings can appear
meticulous, in fact a large number of obvious and accessible terms are
omitted. In this regard, however, he notes the near-certainty that the
received text of the Onomasticon is an epitome and that Pollux did not
compile his lexical listings from direct access to the original texts
but from intermediary lexical work/s. Bettalli wisely eschews the
various guessing games posed by these propositions, preferring to
present some thoughts on military lemmata, without any claim to an
exhaustive treatment. There follows a selective review of the
occurrence, usage and source/s of individual terms in six specimen
sections (naval warfare; commanders and hierarchies; weaponry and
equipment; war, peace and alliance; poliorcetica; penal procedures
related to military service in classical Athens -- for which VIII 40 is
an important source). While these remarks are of intrinsic interest,
the chapter is light on general insights and conclusions, other than
the rather unremarkable observation that the majority of military terms
are attested  in Attic authors of a distant classical age (V-IV
centuries B.C.). I notice some errors: <greek>sunaspismo/s</greek> was
not (151) 'utilizzato per la prima volta da Arriano, Tact. 11, 4' (i.e.
AD 136/7); cf. Diodorus 16.3.2 and Plutarch's Lives (at least 10
instances), but more importantly, and of the same ancestry as Arrian's
Tactica, cf. Asclep. 3.6, 4.3 and Ael. Tact. 11.4-5, 14.8, which affirm
the presence of this word in the lost 'Urtext' of this late Hellenistic
tactical tradition, probably a treatise by Poseidonius of Apamea (ca.
135-51 BC). Also, <greek>e(kato/ntarxos</greek> and
<greek>deka/darxos</greek> need not belong (148) 'in ambito romano'
(i.e. Hellenised centurio and decurio), especially given their
occurrence in Xenophon and the latter's significance as a source for
military vocabulary in Pollux.[[16]] More generally, Bettalli's
deduction (esp. 145, 154) that Pollux may have been relatively
uninterested in military matters fails to acknowledge the implications
of Onom. I 29, where Pollux explicitly apologises for his sketchy
treatment of this field and assures Commodus that he will in future
compose for him a specialist military lexicon.[[17]] Whether Pollux
ever wrote such a work cannot be determined, but a broad analogy may be
drawn with the so-called Lexicon Militare, an undated glossary of
arcane military terminology which became appended to some manuscripts
of the Suda.[[18]] With regard to the possibility of words lost from
the received text of the Onomasticon owing to epitomization of the
archetype, I would suggest that one potential (though not guaranteed)
line of enquiry might be examination of those Byzantine lexica that
drew (directly or indirectly) on Pollux's work for military content,
very probably via a different manuscript tradition, see e.g. the
mid-twelfth-century Etymologicum Magnum, s.v. <greek>strato/s</greek>
(Gaisford 728.48-729.18)[[19]] and the so-called Ad Basilium patricium
Naumachica, a dictionary of nautical terminology compiled ca. 959 and
uniquely preserved in codex Ambrosianus graecus 139 (B 119 sup.)
(339r-342v).[[20]]

Franca Landucci, 'La Macedonia e nascita dell'Ellenismo
nell'Onomasticon di Polluce' (155-170).

In this concluding paper Landucci resumes some of the themes previewed
by Tosi and Zecchini concerning the literary and historical horizons of
Pollux's Hellenism. A less rigorous Atticist than Phrynichus, Pollux
supplemented the hyperatticist canon of historians, adding, for
example, Herodotus. Of the post-Xenophontic historians, Pollux never
cites Ephorus, but there are four citations of Theopompus, who in the
near-contemporary Athenaeus' Deipnosophistae is the chief authority for
the career of Philip II. Landucci infers that Theopompus' Historiae
Philippicae therefore enjoyed a high standing in the second century and
was deemed the last work of classic historiography (156-60), although
one might wonder whether, with just four citations, Pollux shared this
estimation, especially as in one instance Pollux (if not an
interpolation) explicitly disparages Theopompus as a stylist.[[21]]
Landucci observes that the Onomasticon does not cite any post
fourth-century BC historians, including those of Alexander, or any
Hellenistic writers, omitting even Polybius. Philip II is never
mentioned by name, and Alexander appears in only five anecdotal
entries, while the Diadochi and Epigoni are omitted, excepting two
references to Pyrrhus. Clearly Pollux's historical world is that of the
classical polis. Landucci further argues that the Macedonians lie
beyond this cultural horizon: the five citations relating to the ethnic
Makedones or Makedonikos embody a notion of the 'other' (163: 'altro e
sostanzialmente barbaro rispetto al mondo poleico'). In consequence,
the Onomasticon contains little information relating to Macedonian
history. She concludes (165-9) by looking at an institution which
touches upon both the Macedonian and Athenian worlds. At VIII 91 Pollux
refers to the epitaphios ago~n, the games celebrated at Athenian public
funerals, a passage derived from Ath. Pol. 58. Rehearsing the
much-debated problems of the date and origin of the Athenian public
funeral, Landucci observes that only Diodorus XI.33.3 otherwise refers
to the epitaphios ago~n (notably absent from Thuc. II.34.1-7), but that
elsewhere Diodorus also reports this institution as an integral element
of Macedonian royal funerals. She concludes that Pollux mentions the
epitaphios ago~n only in the context of the Athenian public funeral
because, as usual, he is uninterested in Macedonian customs. I found
this line of argument rather hard to follow, or even unnecessary -- as
Pollux's source for this institution was Ath. Pol, why should he ever
think of Macedonians?

There is a very useful index of passages cited from the Onomasticon
(pp. 171-3). I noted a scattering of slips and errors throughout: p.22,
n.24: <greek>Ei(</greek> > <greek>Ei)</greek>; p.23, n.29: 'Abdelonimo
di Sicione' should be 'Abdalonimo di Sidone'; p.25:
<greek>*(Rwmaiko\s</greek> > <greek>*(Rwmai+ko\s</greek>; p.25:
Poll[l]uce; p.43: 'lemmi [p]di Polluce'; p.55, n.41 and 56, nn.46-7:
Philoc{h}orus; p.87, n.74: testu{a}le; p.89 (quotation line 2):
<greek>e(ka/sth</greek> > <greek>e(ka/sth|</greek>; p.136: 'last'
should be 'late'; p.103 (and 125, 126): <greek>pi=nax</greek> >
<greek>pi/nax</greek>; p.105, n.6: <greek>misqo/s
e)kklhsiastiko/n</greek> > <greek>misqo/s e)kklhsiastiko/s</greek>;
p.110: co{n}osciuto; p.117: 'frai{n}tendimento'; p.123, n.75: 'sul sul
rapporto' > 'sul suo rapporto'; p.124: 'nel quale cui' > 'nel quale' or
'in cui'?; p.127, n.88: 'Athenina' > 'Athenian'; p.134: Naucra{t}ita;
p.160, n.28: propoisto > proposito; p.160, n.31: probelmatiche >
problematiche; p.166, n.59: comba[r]ttimento. There is some
inconsistency in Greek orthography, even within the same chapter, e.g.
iota subscript (e.g. pp. 43-4) and postscript (e.g. p. 51).

The essays in this volume are, perhaps inevitably, rather miscellaneous
in content and variable in quality, but it offers much to a diverse
readership which will easily find its own points of interest. For some
aspects of Pollux's life and work it would have been better to revisit
questions rather than rehearse old assumptions. Nevertheless, the
editors can be congratulated for achieving their purpose of drawing
attention to this significant cultural figure, identifying lines of
enquiry and encouraging new approaches; the book will doubtless become
a first port of call for future scholars interested in this subject.


------------------
Notes:


1.   For recent bibliographies see B.E. Borg (ed.), Paideia. The World
of the Second Sophistic (Berlin 2004); T. Whitmarsh, The Second
Sophistic (Oxford 2005).

2.   Pollucis Onomasticon, ed. E. Bethe (Leipzig 1900-37; repr.
Stuttgart 1967).

3.   G. Anderson, The Second Sophistic. A Cultural Phenomenon in the
Roman Empire (London/New York 1993) 11-12.

4.   K. Alpers, Das attizistische Lexicon des Oros. Untersuchung und
kritische Ausgabe der Fragmente (Berlin/New York 1981) 103-7.

5.   I read this passage (I 129) differently, however, as in fact a
reference to a military glossary which Pollux himself intends to write,
see below n. 18.

6.   In her subsequent chapter Franca Landucci deploys the same
evidence to set the limits of Pollux's world firmly within the
boundaries of the classical polis.

7.   M. Naechster, De Pollucis et Phrynichi Controversiis (Diss.
Leipzig 1908).

8.   See S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and
Power in the Greek World AD 50-250 (Oxford 1996) 54-5, with previous
doubts and criticisms of E. Fischer (ed.), Die Ekloge des Phrynichos
([Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 1] Berlin/New York
1974) 44-7; I. Avotins, 'The Sophist Aristocles and the Grammarian
Phrynichus', Parola del Passato 33 [fasc. 180] (1978) 181-91 at 190-91,
n. 30, 'a rivalry unknown to the sources'; G. Anderson, The Second
Sophistic. A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire (London/New York)
91, 'Such evidence remains circumstantial'. On chronology see also I.
Avotins, 'The Holders of the Chairs of Rhetoric at Athens', HSCP 79
(1975) 313-24 at 320-22; S. Swain, 'The Promotion of Hadrian of Tyre
and the Death of Herodes Atticus', CPh 85 (1990) 214-16.

9.   J.H. Oliver, 'Athenian Citizenship of Roman Emperors', Hesperia 20
(1951) 346-9; idem, 'Roman emperors and Athens', Historia 30 (1981)
412-23.

10.   See O. Hekster, Commodus. An Emperor at the Crossroads ([Dutch
Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 23] Amsterdam 2002)
11-13, 106-11, 117-29, 152-6, 166-74, 178-84, 186-8, 199-202; O.
Hekster, 'Propagating Power. Hercules as an example for second-century
emperors' in L. Rawlings and H. Bowden (eds.), Herakles and Hercules.
Exploring a Graeco-Roman Divinity (Swansea 2005) 205-221.

11.   See S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and
Power in the Greek World AD 50-250 (Oxford 1996), ch. 2, esp. 51-6.

12.   I. Bekker (ed.), Anecdota Graeca (Berlin 1814) I 75-116; III
1074-7; see J. de Borries (ed.), Phrynichi Sophistae Praeparatio
Sophistica (Leipzig 1911) xxiv-xxxv; K. Latte, 'Zur Zeitbestimmung des
Antiatticista', Hermes 50 (1915) 373-94.

13.   S. Argyle, 'A new Greek grammarian', CQ 39.2 (1989) 524-535.

14.   L. O'Sullivan, 'Philochorus, Pollux and the nomophylakes of
Demetrius of Phalerum', JHS 121 (2001) 51-62.

15.   I note already, for example, alternative configurations of the
evidence by S.C. Humphreys, The Strangeness of Gods (Oxford 2004) 123-5
(also critical of O'Sullivan at 124, n. 44); I. To/th, 'Guardians of
the Law in Athens in the 5th century BC. Notes to the History of
Ephialtes' Reforms', Aetas 2-3 (2006) 19-31 (in Hungarian with English
summary).

16.   Cf. Cyrop.. 2.1.22-3. 26. 30, 3.21; 4.2.27; 5.3.41; 8.1.14; De
Mag. Equ. 2.2, 4, 6, 7; 4.9.

17.   Onom. I 129: <greek>le/gw de\ nu=n ou) pro\s a)kri/beian tauti\
ta\ o)no/mata: makrw= ga\r tau=ta dei=tai kai\ lo/gou, o(po/tan
taktiko\n h(mi=n h)\ strathgiko\n suntiqw= bibli/on, o(/te kai\ peri\
plaisi/ou kai\ tou= e(teromh/kous plaisi/ou, kai\ tou= e)pi\ me/twpon
kli=nai kai\ e)p' ou)ra\n kai\ e)p' a)spi/da kai\ e)pi\ do/ru, kai\
tw=n merw=n te kai\ a)rxo/ntwn kai\ e)/rgwn kai\ kinh/sewn kaq'
e(/kasta safhniw=</greek>, 'For the present I shall talk here about
these terms without regard to accuracy; but since these matters require
great time and thought, whenever I compose for you a book on tactics
and generalship, I shall then clarify in each case the 'square
formation' and the 'oblong formation' and 'turning to the front' and
'to the rear' and 'to the shield' and 'to the spear', and also units
and officers and operations and manoeuvres (my trans.)'.

18.   As an independent item the Lexicon Militare it is preserved only
in codex Coislinianus 347, ed. H. Koechly and W. Ruestow, Griechische
Kriegsschriftsteller (Leipzig 1855) II.2 217-33. As an appendix to the
Suda, see A. Adler (ed.), Suidae Lexicon (Leipzig 1928-38; repr.
Stuttgart 1967), IV 855-64. For discussion see W.A. Oldfather and J.B.
Titchener, 'A Note on the Lexicon Militare', CP 16 (1921) 74-6; A.
Dain, , L'Histoire du texte d'E/lien le Tacticien des origines a\ la
Fin du Moyen A^ge (Paris 1946) 29-33, 38-40.

19.   See P. Rance, 'The Etymologicum Magnum and the "Fragment of
Urbicius"', GRBS 47.2 (2007) 193-224, esp. 213-223
http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/FTexts/47/Rance.pdf

20.   Edited from a defective secondary MS by A. Dain, Naumachica
(Paris 1943) 57-68: now re-edited with Eng. transl. and notes in J.H.
Pryor and E.M. Jeffreys, The Age of the <greek>*D*R*O*M*W*N</greek>.
The Byzantine Navy ca 500-1204 ([The Medieval Mediterranean 62] Leiden
2006) 521-545. For the date see C.M. Mazzucchi, 'Dagli anni di Basilio
Parakimomenos (cod. Ambr. B 119 sup.)', Aevum 52 (1978) 267-316.

21.   Pollux IV 93 (= FGrH 115 F339): <greek>*Qeo/pompos d' au)tw=|
ke/xrhtai o( suggrafeu/s; a)ll' ou)de\n *Qeopo/mpw| staqmhto\n ei)s
e(rmhnei/as kri/sin</greek>, 'the writer Theopompus uses this term, but
no weight can be put on the stylistic judgement of Theopompus' (my
trans.). Previously Zecchini p. 23 remarks on 'il divario' between
Pollux's and Athenaeus' opinions of Theopompus.