The tenth prefatory letter of Pollux’ Onomasticon transmits two otherwise unattested pieces of information concerning the existence of an anonymous commentary on Xenophon and of a treatise by Eratosthenes of Cyrene entitled Σκευογραφικός. The corrupt state of the text in the manuscript tradition, which the standard edition by E. Bethe has not improved, has so far hindered the full understanding of this passage. This article (a) argues that two corrections should be introduced in 10.2–3 Bethe; (b) suggests that the anonymous (...) commentary on Xenophon quoted by Pollux concerned not only the Περὶ ἱππικῆς, as traditionally assumed, but also the Ἱππαρχικός; and (c) re-examines the evidence supporting the hypothesis that Eratosthenes’ Σκευογραφικός was not part of the better-known Περὶ τῆς ἀρχαίας κωμῳδίας, but an independent work. (shrink)

We can first note the obvious, that both glosses are sexual in nature: τὸ βιάζεσθαι γυναῖκας, ‘to rape women’; in τὸ παιδὶ συνεῖναι we obviously have the euphemistic use of συνεῖναι, ‘to have sex with a child’. Hesychius’ entries have the appearance of straightforward dialect glosses, yet Ambraciot never elicited much attention in ancient dialectology and glossography. Furthermore, as ancient glossography consisted mainly in culling unusual vocabulary from literary texts, we can legitimately ask what sources might have been available to (...) Hellenistic scholars for Ambraciot. (shrink)