Abstract

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 argues that two corrections should be introduced in 10.2–3 Bethe; suggests that the anonymous commentary on Xenophon quoted by Pollux concerned not only the Περὶ ἱππικῆς, as traditionally assumed, but also the Ἱππαρχικός; and 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.