Studies in Atticistic lexica of the second and third centuries AD

This thesis provides individual studies in and a comparison of the Atticistic lexica of the second and third centuries AD. Modern European classicists have looked at the lexicogra-phers separately, but never as a group or in direct comparison. German philologists of the 19th and early 20th centuries looked at them in depth, but did not draw conclusions for their social context, other than the supposed rivalry between Phrynichus and Pollux, while modern classicists of the late 20th century referred to them mainly as source to strengthen their theories for the broader social context of the Second Sophistic.Most extant Atticistic lexica stem from the second and third centuries AD, and it seems natural to concentrate on this period of time in this context. The first chapter of this thesis summarises the linguistic developments leading up to this period of time to provide a bet-ter understanding of Atticism. Atticism cannot be understood fully without special consid-eration of the Atticistic lexicographical movement and vice versa. Chapter II discusses Ae-lius Dionysius and Pausanias, the so-called “forefathers of Atticistic lexicography”, and establishes their neutral approach to the promotion of Atticism. Philemon and the Antiatti-cist are briefly introduced in Chapters III and IV, [but not discussed in length due to exist-ing literature and fragmentary character of the former and the unusual approach of the sub-ject matter and the weak manuscript tradition of the latter.] Chapters V, VI and VII form the core of this analysis with the discussion of Phrynichus’ feisty promotion of Atticism, Moeris’ close links to Phrynichus and his unusual tripartite criteria (Ἀττικόν, Ἑλλήνικον, κοινόν), and Pollux��� Onomasticon which provides us with a unique insight to the lexicog-rapher’s methods, intentions and readership. Chapter VIII reveals that there was harsh crit-icism of those who “over-Atticised,” and discusses who of these lexicographers might have fallen under this criticism. Just as there was no standardised approach to the imitation of Attic Greek, there was no standardised lexicographical approach to providing guidance.