The Ancient Languages - Dicionaries-1

619
38. The ancient languages of Greek and Latin

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
The periods of Greek and Latin language

history
Mycenaean Greek
Antiquity and Medieval glossaries
Greek and Latin dictionaries from 1450 to
1800
Selected bibliography
The periods of Greek and Latin

language history
The following contribution will examine the

Greek and Latin dictionaries which are at
our disposal for these two most important
written languages of Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The numerous dictionaries referring
to single authors are not taken into consideration, and only Antiquity up to approximately 600 AD can be considered. A subdivision of history into periods serves to show
that different periods of time have been considered.
1.1. Greek
The beginnings of the Greek language can be
traced back to approximately 1400 BC when
the first Linear B texts appeared; this tradition ended in about 1200 BC. After a period
of about 450 years without written documentation, texts which are written in a precursor
of the Greek alphabet that we know of appear around 750 BC. This writing system had,
in its fundamentals, been borrowed from Semitic writing systems, and strictly speaking,
it has lasted to the present day. The two epics
which used to mark, and to a certain degree,
still mark the point of reference for all Greeks,
the Iliad and the Odyssey, were brought into
written form between 750 and 720 BC; they
however preserve many older linguistic elements going back to the second century BC.
The oldest inscriptions also date from the
eighth century BC. The Modern Greek of the
present time continues in the tradition of Ancient Greek without any significant breaks
with tradition, which makes it impossible to
refer to a point in time when the differences
would have become so marked as to speak
of a new language: unlike in Latin-Romance
language history, there is no definite end of
Ancient Greek or beginning of Modern Greek.
For practical reasons, language-external
events which roughly coincide with inner
changes in language history will serve to sub-
divide linguistic periods in the following.

With the beginning of the Peloponnesian War
(431 BC), the classical period, characterised
by Attic influence, properly begins. Alexander the Greats death (423 BC), which marks
the beginning of the world-wide recognition
of Greek as a language of culture, first of the
Hellenic empires of the Orient and then of
the eastern part of the Roman Empire, also
marks the transition between classical Greek
and the koine of Hellenic times, which without any outer signals passed into the language of the eastern part of the Roman Empire controlled by the Romans. The age of
Byzantine Greek begins in 330 when Constantinople became the capital of the Byzantine Empire and ends with the conquest of
Constantinople on 29 May 1453 by the Turks.
In linguistics and literary studies, it is, however, common to distinguish between the
Greek of Antiquity and the Greek of the
Middle Ages, taking 600 AD as a dividing
line, though the contemporaries in no way
had the feeling of a break with tradition.
Thus, not taking into consideration the
Byzantine Greek of the Middle Ages and any
manifestations of Modern Greek, the lexicography of Ancient Greek comprises five periods,
of which the last four are usually considered
as an integrated whole in all the dictionaries
and therefore are treated as a whole, whereas
Mycenaean Greek is subject to specialised
dictionaries:
(1.) Mycenaean Greek in Linear B script
(1400!1200 BC);
(2.) Pre-classical Greek (750!431 BC);
(3.) Classical (Attic) Greek (431!323 BC);
(4.) Hellenic Greek and the Greek of Roman
times (323 BC!330 AD);
(5.) The Byzantine Greek of Antiquity (330
AD!600 AD).
1.2. Latin
The periods of Latin naturally begin later
than those of Greek, and there is no preliminary stage in the second millennium BC. The
verifiable history of the language begins with
the first inscriptions dating from the fifth
century BC, which are probably contemporaneous with the original text of the oldest religious texts (the Arval cantos) and are only
handed down to us later as testimonials. After the testimonials of Archaic Latin, Latin
!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

AAAnnngggeeemmmeeellldddeeettt ||| 111000...222444888...222555444...111555888
HHHeeerrruuunnnttteeerrrgggeeelllaaadddeeennn aaammm ||| 111333...000999...111444 111222:::222000
620
VII. The ancient languages of the Near East and the classical languages
literature properly begins around 250 BC.

One may speak of an older period of Republican Latin until the short period of Classical Latin which began with Cicero around
80 BC. The end of the Republic and the beginnings of the Empire, with the conquest
of Egypt by the future emperor Augustus
(30 BC), may be taken as a break. The (historical) end of the Western Roman Empire
(476 AD) marks the transition to Late Latin,
which is regionally diverse. Under Charlemagne (crowned Roman Emperor in 800 AD)
the transition (Carolingian Renaissance) to
Medieval Latin takes place. Medieval Latin
is influenced to various degrees by antique
patterns and is no longer focused on the spoken language. With the earliest Romance
texts (Strasburg Oaths in 842), there are new
idioms at hand which are of Latin origin, but
can no longer be termed Latin. Constant imitation of classical Latin during the Renaissance and Humanism leads to the end of Medieval Latin. Thus, the following subdivision
into periods results for antique Latin, which
is treated as a whole in dictionaries (with a
conventional end point of representations
around 600 AD):
(1.) Archaic Latin (550!250 BC);
(2.) The more ancient Latin of the Roman
Republic (250!80 BC);
(3.) The Classical Latin of the Late Republic
(80!30 BC);
(4.) The Latin of the times of the Roman emperors (30 BC!476 AD);
(5.) The Late Latin of the various provinces
(476!800 AD).
2.
Mycenaean Greek
In the course of his excavations in Knossos

and in other ruin sites of Minoic culture,
J. Evans found inscriptions on clay plates,
prints left on seals, and vases in three different alphabets, which hieroglyphically are
termed Linear A and Linear B (Bartonfk 2003:
16!39). After many futile efforts, Michael
Ventris managed to decipher them in 1952: in
a first publication in 1953 together with the
Graecist John Chadwick, Linear B was presented as the written form of a manifestation
of Greek (Chadwick 1990). Despite numerous objections initially, there can be no doubt
about this today.
There are three regions in Greece from which
Linear B texts stem: Crete (Mallia, Knossos,
Armenoi, Mamelouko, Chania), the Pelopon-
nese with Pylos and the Argolis (Mycenae,

Tiryns, Midea), and Central Greece with Attica (Eleusis) and Boeotia (Thebes, Kreusis,
Orchomenos). There are more than 8,000
fragments known from Knossos, which stem
from 3,000 to 4,000 plates, and about 1,300
texts from Pylos; all the other sites have contributed less than 100 texts, whereof Tiryns,
only 5.
Linear B is a syllabic writing system with
approximately 100 signs, all of which represent single vowels, diphthongs, and open syllables with one or two consonants at the onset; moreover there are some ideograms as
well as numerals and signs for weights and
measures. There is also a syllabic writing system in Linear A, in which an unknown substrate language of Greek had been written;
comparable syllabic writing systems are, however, also known from the Cypriot or Iberian
scripts. Linear B is unsuitable for representing the phonemic characteristics of Greek; it
had obviously been designed for a different
language, since there are many silent vowels
on the one hand and consonants which are
not written down on the other hand. Vowel
quantity, consonantal geminates, aspirations,
and the oppositions between /r/~/l/, /p/~/b/,
and /k/~/g/ are not indicated. Word-final consonants are omitted, which is a significant
shortcoming considering Greek morphology.
The documents in Linear B mostly consist
of economic texts: inventories of the fittings
and furnishings of palaces, the stock of armours and chariots, lists of commodities
(wool, textiles, sesame, caraway seed, coriander); additionally, there are instructions on
troupe movements, lists of victims, and many
names. These practical texts only represent a
certain part of the vocabulary, but nonetheless they reveal some fields of Mycenaean administration, economy, and military organisation; furthermore they make it possible to
draw conclusions of the culture in general.
The lexicographic recording of Linear B
texts began with the publication of Documents in Mycenaean Greek by the decipherer
Michael Ventris and his Graecist colleague
John Chadwick in 1956; in 1973 John Chadwick presented a second, apart from a few
additions, unrevised edition of the text. It includes a Mycenaean Glossary (1973: 527594), which contains an entry for every complete Mycenaean word recorded up to 1972
(1973: 527). Words are quoted under their
simplest form in Latin transcription, and prefixes and suffixes are ignored. There is a

621
Latin transcription of the Linear B signs, but

a trial to represent the words in the normal
Greek alphabet had been abandoned for the
most part after the first publication. An exception to this general rule is the Mycenaean
Greek Vocabulary by John Chadwick and
Lydia Baumbach (1963; 1972), which lists
Greek words in the usual Greek alphabet.
A first comprehensive dictionary after
Chadwick was presented by Anna Morpurgo
Davies (1963). Lejeune 1964 is based on this
dictionary. Today the DMic. by Francisco
Aura Jorro (1985/1993) is the most reliable
dictionary and will probably remain the
prime work of reference for a long time.
3.
Antiquity and Medieval glossaries
3.1. Greek
If we date the end of Linear B documents to
1200 BC and the reintroduction of writing in
a totally different script which is borrowed
from a Phoenician alphabet, to 750 BC, then
we have a dark age without any written
documents of at least 450 years. Oral tradition however, preserved memories of the past
Mycenaean world, which specially find expression in oral poetry about a war between
Greeks and Trojans. After the reintroduction
of writing, these cantos were written down
and compiled into two major epics, the Iliad
and the Odyssey, and attributed to Homer.
The literary tradition of the Greeks, and in
the end, also their way to see themselves as a
nation, was connected to the Homerian epics
from the beginning, and any kind of education began with Homer. Plato rightly said
that this poet had educated Greece (Politeia
X: 606e).
The language of the Homerian epics has
an artificial character because, obeying to
metrical restrictions, it is stylistically elevated
compared to everyday language, since there
are many archaisms, which can be explained
by the long oral tradition, and because it is a
mixture of several dialects, especially Ionian
and Aeolian. Thus, neither the Iliad nor the
Odyssey were entirely comprehensible to a
Greek of the 5th or 4th century BC without a
linguistic commentary. A second factor accounting for the emergence of explanations
of single words can be seen in the fact that
there was no standard language, but that every polis had its own dialect. Furthermore,
there were dialects for different genres in literature (Aeolian for monodic lyrics, Doric
for chorale lyrics, Ionic-Attic for prose and

dialogues in theatre, cf. Kramer 1979: 65!69).
Thus, it was obvious that local linguistic
characteristics had to be explained as soon as
communication on a supralocal level was the
objective. Finally, the emergence of a literary
tradition led to a need to explain obsolete
words or words connected to temporal factors.
Any dark word not belonging to the ordinary everyday language is called glwssa
[glossa] in Greek, plural form glwssai [glossai]. This expression has the basic meaning
tongue, then language and dialect, of which
a special meaning developed: a word not in
general usage. The compilers of lists of these
elements were called glwssogravfoi [glosso"graphoi], and the process of compiling such
a word list was termed glwssografiva [glossogra"phia] (Dyck 1987: 119!130). The first
author we know to have written about Homer, linguistic correctness, and dark words
was Demokrit of Abdera (460!370 BC), but
only insignificant fragments of his works are
preserved in the citations of later authors
(Pfeiffer 1968: 42). Likewise, there is little
preserved of other glossaries on Homer of the
4th century BC, on the authors of tragedies
and comedies, on orators, and on specialist
writers apart from a few titles and even fewer
fragments (Pfeiffer 1968: 79). This is because
the scholars working in the sphere of the library of Alexandria in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC put the works of their predecessors
in the background and made them fall into
oblivion.
Ptolemaios I., who, following the example
set by Alexanders other Diadochs, had himself crowned king of Egypt in 304 BC, resided
in Alexandria until his death in 283/282 BC
and had a museion with an adjoining library
erected there. The task of this institution was
to gather the leading scholars and copies of
the complete literature of the time in one
place, thereby demonstrating the superiority
of Greek culture and the protecting function
of the king. The store of books is said to have
consisted of 500,000 to 700,000 rolls under
his successor Ptolemaios II. ( 246 BC) (Ps.
Arist. 10; Gell. 7, 17, 3). The directors of the
library (Zenodotos, Eratosthenes, Aristophanes of Byzantium, Aristarchos of Samothrake) were the most important philologists of their time, and beside their editing
activities, they all occupied themselves with
glossai. We know this from excerpts found in
the works of later authors. Zenodot of Ephesos
wrote the first alphabetically ordered list of

622
noticeable words (Nickau 1972: 40; Pfeiffer

1968: 115), whereas Aristophanes of Byzantium (257!180 BC) preferred an onomasiological order for his extensive collection
Lexeis words (Pfeiffer 1968: 200!201). In
an introductory chapter, following a chronological objective, he differentiated neologisms
(words of which we presume that the old
ones did not use them) and archaisms (words
only used by the old ones) (Pfeiffer 1968:
198!199).
An example may serve to illustrate Aristophanes of Byzantiums method: in a fragment preserved in the works of the Byzantine
author Eustathios (ad Il. 6, 378 # p. 648, 53)
we learn the exact designations of relatives
by marriage (in translation), attested with examples drawn from the Iliad. It is striking to
see how the author tries to structure the lexicon logically and thus to identify cases vides.
One has to know that in the designation of relatives as to the Grammarian Aristophanes there is
a certain difference between eJkurov [hekyros] and
penqerov [pentheros]. He namely says that penqerov [pentheros] is the wifes father from the
bridegrooms perspective and penqerav [penthera]
the mother; eJkurov [hekyros] is the husbands father from the brides perspective and eJkurav [hekyra] the mother, such as were Priamos and Hekabe
to Helena according to him. There we also find
that some poets frequently use gambrov [gambros]
instead of penqerov [pentheros]. Aristophanes also
says that Cassandra is the gavlw [galos] to Helena
and Hector the dahvr [daer], but there is no special
name cited for Helena; thus a special designation
for the brothers wife is missing, as he says.
Dictionary excerpt 38.1: Designations of relatives
by marriage in a fragment by Eustathios (ad Il. 6,
378 # p. 648, 53).
In the Alexandrine tradition many dictionaries came into being, which are only available
to us in cheap copies of the Roman or even
of the Byzantine time. What these glossaries
have in common is that they were written by
highly educated philologists and that they refer to literary realities: glosses on Homer (Neoptolemos of Parion, Philitas, Simmias) and
other authors, dialectal expressions (Zenodot, Antigonos of Karystos), and proper
nouns. School was the most important interest group for these kinds of defining dictionaries, but advanced students of philosophical
and rhetorical training courses also were important. Thus, we can speak of learned glossaries or school glossaries (Kramer 1996:
31; 2001: 5). Glossaries which are preserved
include, for instance, partly in shortened
versions Apollonios Sophistes (1st century

AD) alphabetically ordered dictionary on
Homer, of which also exist some papyrus
fragments which deviate textually in a remarkable way (Henrichs/Mller 1976), Harpokrations (2nd century AD) dictionary on
orators which comments on words and expressions used by the ten classical orators in
alphabetical order by giving factual explanations, and Iulius Polluxs Onomastikon # Polydeukes (2nd century AD), which is ordered
according to subject areas and which contains long series of synonyms also for special
fields such as medicine, agriculture, or childrens games (Dihle 1989: 265!266).
In this context, dictionaries written in the
fashion of the 1st century AD which consists
of rejecting contemporaneous linguistic developments in favour of an imitation of the
linguistic characteristics of Atticas classical
authors (Atticism) shall be specially mentioned (Dihle 1989: 62!72). The very first
purist dictionaries are specially represented
by Moiriss (end of the 2nd century AD) simple word list, in which Attic and non-Attic
(Hellenic or general) forms are placed next
to each other in alphabetical order after the
first letter; non-Attic expressions may, however, deviate lexically or morphologically
from the Attic ones, e.g. (o 40!46 # Hansen
1998: 129!130)
ou\ [us] Attics, wjtivon [oton] Greeks;
o[fei [opheis] Attics for what is termed yevlia [pselia]
by the Greeks;
o{rmo [hormos] Attics, peritrachvlio [peritrachelios] Greeks;
ojpth~re [opteres] Attics, katavskopoi [kataskopoi]
Greeks;
ojphvn [open] Attics, truvphma [trypema] Greeks;
o[clo [ochlos] the Attics (call) the amount, which
is called o[clhsi [ochlesis] by the Greek;
ojpov [opos] Attics, putiva [pyta] Greeks.
Dictionary excerpt 38.2: Moiriss simple word list
(end of the 2nd century AD).
Two major works brought the heritage of antique lexicography to the Byzantine era and
represented the decisive revisions of the Greek
lexicon up to the Renaissance: Hesych of Alexandrias alphabetical word list from the 5th
century and the historical encyclopaedia
handed down under the name of Suda from
the 10th century. Hesychios was an Alexandrine scholar of the 5 th century AD, who, according to his own statements in the preface,
based his work on Diogenianos of Herakleias dictionary (2nd century AD, for its
own part a reworking of Pamphilos of Alex-

623
andrias Glossai kai Lexeis from the 1st century AD) and numerous other glossaries. His
aim was to compile the noticeable words
found in Homer, in the authors of comedies
and tragedies, in the poets, orators, physicians, and historians, and thus to write a full
alphabetical dictionary of Lexeis. This work
is available to us through a shortened manuscript that had been interpolated many times
from the 15th century, but despite this uncertain situation concerning the tradition of the
text, it is the most extensive antique dictionary and the only source for many archaic
and dialectal words as well as for jargon
(Blumenthal 1930). The last ten articles about
words may give an impression (with items
giving the English meaning given in general
Greek in the original) (Schmidt 1862: 368):
w[y [ops] see, eye;
w[yato [opsato] he swore, he witnessed, he
knew;
w\yai [opsai] you were seen;
w[yeion [opseion] they looked around, they
wanted to see;
wjyav [opsa] fried food;
wjyizovmhn [opsizomen] I did it late; I began
too slowly;
wjyivsqhn [opssthen] ich war spt;
wjyismevnon [opsismenon] at a late hour, coming too slowly;
wjyikovta [opsikota] come too slowly;
wjwn [oon] a coats opening
Dictionary excerpt 38.3: Hesych of Alexandrias alphabetical word list from the 5th century (Schmidt
1862: 368).
Diogenianos of Herakleias dictionary is also

one of the main sources for the alphabetical
Lexikon by the patriarch Photios (810!893
AD), which he himself called a work from
his youth.
The Suda encyclopaedia is of a totally different kind: it is an alphabetically ordered
historical encyclopaedia covering approximately 30,000 lemmata which had rightly
been called a compilation of compilations;
there are linguistic, literary, and historic
items interwoven without a synthesis being
attempted, thus something similar to a Byzantine encyclopaedia of conversation was
created (Adler 1928!1938).
3.2. Latin
Latin lexicography stood in the tradition of
the Greek model, but the writing of monolingual dictionaries to explain dark words set
in relatively late, probably because, among
other reasons, there was no older national
poet who brought up linguistic problems in

the way Homer did for Greek. Thus among
Varros 75 works, there is none which might
be called a dictionary, though Varro is the
proper founder of Latin linguistics. It is only
M. Verrius Flaccus, educator of the prince at
Augustus court, who can be called the founder
of Latin lexicography. His extensive, alphabetically ordered work De verborum significatu On the meaning of words is not preserved in the original, but the second half of
the alphabet is available in a shortened version written by Sex. Pompeius Festus at the
end of the 2nd century AD; Festus himself became the subject of a very shortened version
written by Paulus Diaconus at the end of the
8th century. In Festus version, there are, to
a great extent, citations from older literary
sources, whereas this scientific apparatus
had been omitted in Paulus Diaconus version. Thus Festus explains the lemma sacrosanctum, for example, in the following way:
something confirmed by an oath is called
sacrosanctum; if someone was to violate this,
then he must be punished by death. The tribunes and the aediles of the same order are
of this kind; M. Cato confirms this when he
writes that the Plebeian aediles are sacrosanct. In Paulus Diaconus, the second sentence containing the quotation from Cato is
missing.
Of course there was also a need to explain
extraordinary words in schools. The subsequent anonymous glossaries have, as in the
forms available to us, only come into being
from the 5th and 6th centuries onwards, thus
towards the end of Antiquity (Goetz 1888!
1923; Lindsay 1926!1931). Normally, they
consist of short items giving synonyms to
lemmata, e.g. (CGL 4: 3, 1!5)
abstrusa # abscondita;
abdicat # alienat vel respuit;
abactus # ab actore motus;
abstemus # sobrius;
abrogare # legem tollere
Dictionary excerpt 38.4: CGL 4: 3, 1!5.
Medieval lexicography continues the tradition of these late antique glossaries: Papias
(first half of the 11th century) shall be named
as an example, whose Elementarium is based
on the Liber glossarum (Glossarium Ansileubi), which had been compiled of late antique glossaries in the 8th century.
3.3. Bilingual Glossaries
The proper progress to be connected with Latin
word collections does not lie, however, in
monolingual lexicography, which had reached

624
a much higher level in Greek, but instead in

taking the first steps towards bilingual dictionaries. Traditionally, the Greeks were barely interested in foreign languages: the average
Hellene expected the Barbarians to take care
of learning Greek by themselves, and it was
only by coincidence that one would acquire
some knowledge of a foreign language. Up
to the period of Alexander the Great, we do
not hear of anyones written competence in a
foreign language. This changes subsequent to
the establishment of the Diadochs kingdoms:
suddenly, there was a significant number of
Greeks who not only resided for personal
reasons (commerce, politics) among foreigners for a certain time, but who also settled
there permanently; it goes without saying that
under these circumstances that at least a rudimentary knowledge of the local languages
played a crucial role. Documents from Egypt
clearly indicate this; we know their inner
functioning best thanks to numerous papyri
found there. In the Heidelberg collection of
papyri, there was a papyrus from the 3rd century BC (it got lost in the turmoil of war, but
there is a photograph preserved) which gives
the Egyptian equivalents for everyday words
such as bed, talent, axe, iron, sword,
seat, wool, dove, donkey in a kind of
phonetic transcription (Quecke 1997). There
is no comparable document known from preChristian times, and also in Late Antiquity
there is only a dozen at most of such GreekCoptic word lists (Hasitzka 1990: 181!200).
Nonetheless, we can record the fact that a
new means arose in Greek-Egyptian language
contact in the context of the requirements of
everyday life in a bilingual society: the practical glossary or bilingual glossary of everyday
language, written by amateurs to cope with
everyday life in a bilingual society without
any discernible recourse to literary or grammarian preparation work and only meant for
the moment.
These practical Greek-Egyptian glossaries and similar parallel versions from the
Orient we do not know of served as examples to similarly structured Latin-Greek practical glossaries, which became necessary after
the conquest of Egypt by the Romans in the
year 30 BC. In bilingual everyday life such
aids must have been frequent, but they were
meant for the moment only, not to last, and
so it is not surprising that we possess a maximum of three specimen of these practical
Greek-Egyptian glossaries (Kramer 2001: 22).
One of these, the Folium Parisinum with ap-
proximately 50 Latin-Greek (and occasionally Greek-Latin) word pairs written about

600 AD, contains many clearly vernacular elements in the Greek as well as in the Latin
forms (Kramer 2007: 145!156).
The bilingual dictionaries handed down to
us in medieval times (CGL 2 and 3) and also
the major part of the roughly two dozen papyrus fragments published up to today (Kramer 1983; 2001) do not belong to the group
of practical glossaries, but to school glossaries. Thus they stand in the tradition of the
glosses, with the difference that, in this case,
it is not dark Greek words that are explained by more frequently used words, but
a foreign element paraphrased by a Greek
word. Such explanatory collections of foreign
elements already existed in the case of the Alexandrine scholars referring to the occasional
appearance of single foreign words in literary
works, but it was only in the Roman context
that lists with Latin-Greek equivalents came
into being which were primarily meant to
make Latin literature, above all Virgil, accessible to the Greeks. Within these word lists,
two types have to be distinguished, namely,
idiomata and hermeneumata.
When a Latin expression deviates grammatically from its Greek equivalent, we speak
of an idioma (Kramer 1996: 33), i.e. when a
Latin word is masculine and its Greek equivalent feminine (idiomata generum), when a
Latin deponent verb is opposed to a Greek
active verb (idomata generum verbi), and
when a Latin word governs a case other than
the Greek equivalent (idiomata casuum). The
category of idiomata is based on assuming
Greek as the norm and the particularities of
Latin as deviations from this norm, just as
particularities of dialects within the Greek
language found their way into idiomata. This
has to be seen against the backdrop of declaring Latin a Greek dialect, a variety of Aeolian, from the 1st century BC onwards (cf.
Quintilian 1, 6, 31); thus it was possible to
apply a model basically meant to explain inner Greek grammatical differences from Latin.
Idiomata are the less frequent type of word
lists, in papyrus documents as well as in medieval tradition (CGL 2: 537!553; Charisius
V # GL 1: 291!296).
A hermeneuma is a literal translation of a
Latin word or sentence into Greek (Kramer
1996: 34!35). Latin-Greek parallel glossaries
have been summed up under this term since
the Renaissance. In the original version they
begin with the alphabet, then they begin with

625
an alphabetical dictionary first and with one

ordered according to special fields next (names
of gods and goddesses, vegetables, fish, birds,
seasons, medical terms etc.), finally there are
very simple parallel texts and literary texts at
the close. Unlike idiomata, which have a
grammatical background, hermeneumata are
purely lexically orientated and care little about
grammatical phenomena. In the course of being passed down, the hermeneumata, which
exist in several versions differing greatly concerning details, were wrongly attributed to a
grammarian Dositheus; therefore they are
also called Hermeneumata Pseudo-Dositheana
(CGL 2). The original extent of this collection must have been enormous: we may conclude from a papyrus fragment from Gttingen that the complete work had an extent of
at least 400 pages, the manuscript of the Cyril
glossary (CGL 2: 215!483) comprises 480
pages, the Philoxenos glossary, (CGL 2: 2!
212) 436 pages. It is especially the alphabetical part of these dictionaries which is very
popular that served as the basis for medieval revisions.
4.
Greek and Latin dictionaries from

1450 to 1800
4.1 Greek and Latin dictionaries up to

1530
Apart from a few exceptions, Greek was not
spoken in the Latin speaking Occident during
the Middle Ages, and the antique bilingual
dictionaries were handed down as sources of
exotic knowledge, but not as a means of
learning Greek. In this situation, the inflow
of books and intellectuals from Byzantium/
Constantinople was threatened by destruction and brought about a drastic change: suddenly there were Greek texts, people able to
understand and explain them and, above all,
a widespread desire among scholars to learn
the Greek language.
During the time from the beginnings of the
art of printing to Budes Commentarii linguae
Graecae in 1529, about 50 Greek dictionaries
with Latin equivalents appeared. They are
based on the antique glossaria, which were
either shortened or expanded by new materials, depending on the respective need. The
Greek words are explained by one or two
Latin equivalents, and normally there are not
any items given on collocations or on sources
of citation in antique authors.
Latin lexicography likewise was no longer

put in the background by antique word collections from the 15th to the 16th century. The
Augustine monk Ambrosius Calepinus (1440!
1510/11) of Bergamo created a new type of
dictionary with his Dictionarium, which appeared for the first time in Reggio dEmilia
in 1502 and which dominated the market in
countless new and revised editions up to the
18th century. This basically alphabetical dictionary the order is disrupted because
words considered to be related etymologically or semantically are ordered together
contains items giving grammatical information on the lemmata, gives detailed information on the meaning of a word (in Latin) and
offers literary citations on usage (with rudimentary indication of sources). Calepinus himself procured a second edition of this work
which became a starting point for dictionaries and translated Latin words into different
languages: first a Latin-Greek edition appeared, called Dictionum Latinarum et Graecarum interpres perspicacissimus (Vienna 1513,
many further publications), then modern languages were consulted for explanation (e.g.
Italian: Il Dittionario di Ambrogio Calepino
dalla lingua latina nella volgare, Venice 1553),
until there was an edition in five languages
(Latin, Greek, German, Dutch, French)
(Pentaglottos, Antwerp 1546), one in seven
languages (i.e. six apart from Latin, Greek,
Italian, French, Spanish, German, Dutch)
(Dictionarium hexaglottum, Basel 1567), and
finally one in eleven languages (Latin, Hebrew, Greek, French, Italian, German, Dutch,
Spanish, Polish, Hungarian, English) (Dictionarium undecim linguarum, Basel 1590),
which were reprinted again and again. Thus
the Calepinus the name soon became the
normal term for a Latin dictionary became
the precursor not only of monolingual Latin
dictionaries, but also of dictionaries translating Latin words into modern languages.
4.2. The Stephani: Robert and Henri
Estienne
A new approach was developed in France in
the 1520s. Between 1509 and 1519, there were
at least half a dozen Calepinus editions published by several printers (Paris 1509, 1510,
1512, 1513, 1516, 1519), and Robert Estienne
(Robertus Stephanus, 1503!1559), head of
the largest printers dynasty of his day and
also an excellent Latinist, first intended to
join this boom and likewise to publish a Calepinus edition. Considering, however, the

626
weaknesses of this work, he soon turned to

working on a completely new dictionary, which
appeared in 1531 under the title Dictionarium
seu Latinae linguae Thesaurus. Robert Estiennes primary aim was to give more detailed
information than Calepinus, and above all to
make items giving the sources of citations
more transparent; the fact that most authors
were meanwhile using a canonical way of
enumerating chapters was helpful in this
process. Robert Estienne had compiled card
indexes drawn from the classical authors, beginning with Plautus and Terence, and so he
was able to record the lexicon to a great extent and to obtain reliable results as to the
meaning of lexemes and phrases. Unlike Calepinus, the Parisian printer was well versed
in contemporary literature on grammar and
lexicography, and so he was able to present
the most recent state of affairs in controversies. There were short French indications on
meaning added to the first edition of 1531,
which were less numerous in the second edition of 1536 and totally omitted from 1543.
Up to the publication of Egidio Forcellinis
last large dictionary to date in 1771, this Thesaurus remained the decisive dictionary on
Latin. There were countless new editions and
revisions, of which Matthias Gesners (1691!
1761) Novus Thesaurus Latinae linguae (1749)
deserves to be specially mentioned; it has a
more precise subdivision of articles and verifies the items given on sources on the basis
of contemporary editions.
If Robert Estiennes Thesaurus meant a
great progress in Latin lexicography, the Greek
pendant published by his son Henri Estienne
(Henricus Stephanus, 1528!1598) in 1572
(called paternae in thesauro Latino aemulus
in the title) meant reaching a higher level in
the lexicographic recording of the lexicon of
a dead language in Graecistics. The Thesaurus Graecae linguae offers more than 100,000
words in five volumes, in the first edition as
in the hardly changed reprint of 1580. This
work is essentially based on the card index
boxes Robert Estienne had compiled while
checking through the numerous Greek classics published in his publishing house, but of
course he had predecessors. Especially deserving to be mentioned is Guillaume Bude
(Gulielmus Budaeus, 1468!1540), who published his Commentarii linguae Graecae in
1529, which were published in a second revised edition by Robert Estienne in 1448.
This extensive work arranged according to
factual criteria and often appearing chaotic
in its structure, focuses on legal vocabulary,

verbs and lexemes with factual reference.
Henri Estienne draws extensively on it and
thus makes it indispensable for the further
history of lexicography (Sanchi 2006: 151).
Henri Estiennes Thesaurus is not alphabetically ordered in the narrow sense, but the lexemes are ordered according to word families,
which are based on derivational criteria. This
causes problems in looking up words, although a strictly alphabetical index at the end
of the fifth volume makes it easier to find
them. The single articles are structured according to semantic criteria, with citations
from Greek authors serving for orientation.
Antique Greek literature is considered in great
detail: epic, dramatic, philosophical and above
all, historiographical literature is considered
to an extent which was only exceeded in the
19th century. Items giving the sources of citations are, however, quite summary in the
first edition; in this, later editions proved
helpful. The meaning of words and commentaries are given in Latin. Thus the Thesaurus
stands at the beginning of the modern lexicography of Greek as an outstanding, still indispensable monument, as Javier Lopez Facal (1977: 112) remarked, just as the Iliad is
a monument to the beginning of Greek literature.
There were numerous reprints with supplements of the Thesaurus linguae Graecae (the
London revised edition from 1816 to 1828 is
best known; it contributed extensive supplementary material, but maintained the basic
structure, cf. G. Hermanns criticism in Hermann 1827: 223!225), real progress was,
however, only obtained with Karl Benedict
Hases (1780!1864) revised edition published
in Paris between 1831 and 1865 and above
all with Wilhelm Dindorf s (1802!1883) and
Ludwig Dindorf s (1805!1871) entirely revised edition in nine volumes published by
Firmin Didots. In this edition, the alphabetical ordering of the lemmata has been carried
out strictly, and all the items giving the
sources of citations are given according to
the modern citation form; likewise the development of meaning and syntactic particularities are given more consistently. The numerous supplements provided by modern revisers
are put into square brackets and thus stand
out from the original text. This revised edition of the Thesaurus is the most comprehensive completed dictionary of Greek to date
and has to be consulted for any lexicographical work.

627
One of the disadvantages of the Thesaurus

Graecae linguae is its large scope, therefore it
is problematic for private users to purchase
it. This disadvantage was already perceived
in the 16th century. Johannes Scapula, employed as a proof-reader at Henri Estiennes,
published a shortened pirated edition in a
single volume under the title Lexicon GraecoLatinum in Basel in 1579. This edition kept
Henri Estiennes semantic items, but omitted
those giving the sources of citations; moreover it was ordered strictly alphabetically, regardless of derivational mechanisms. There
were many reprints until the 19th century,
partly under a pseudonym (Hederich 1722).
Real progress in Greek lexicography was,
however, not achieved until the end of the
18th century (Lopez Facal 1977: 112).
Likewise, there was little achieved in Latin
lexicography in the 17th and 18th centuries:
the older dictionaries were adjusted, but real
revisions were not the goal. On the one hand,
there were revisions of Robert Estiennes
Thesaurus linguae Latinae, which were published in London (4 volumes, 1734!1735), in
Basel (4 volumes, revised by Antonius Birrius, 1740!1743) and above all in Leipzig (4
volumes, revised by Matthias Gesner, Leipzig
1749), on the other hand, multilingual dictionaries, such as Henricus Decimators Thesaurus linguarum, which juxtaposes six languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, Italian, German), dominated the market.
4.3. Egidio Forcellini
Real progress was achieved with the dictionary by the Paduan seminarist Egidio
Forcellini (1688!1768), which was published
in four volumes in Padua in 1771 and was
then reprinted several times with supplements
(lastly in 1940). In this work, not only is literature considered in a particularly detailed
way, but for the first time, the lexemes found
in inscriptions are included. The basic meaning of lexemes is shortly given in Italian and
Greek (!), followed by a Latin definition in
which special emphasis is placed on giving
stylistic advice on the use of words in the
active usage of Latin. Articles are structured
starting from the basic meaning (proprie) to
figurative and tropic uses (figuratae significationes). Thus articles are properly structured according to the semantic development
of a word in an historic perspective. For
those parts of the alphabets for which the
new Thesaurus does not yet exist (at present
the letters N and S to Z ), and for the major
part of names, the revision of which had been

stopped at the end of the letter D for the time
being, Forcellinis Totius Latinitatis Lexicon
is the most detailed source of information
to date.
4.4. Bilingual concise dictionaries
4.4.1. Latin
An important new development in Latin lexicography was the Latin-modern language
concise dictionary which was introduced at
the end of the 18th century, reached its peak
in the 19th century and to date belongs to any
Latinists tools of the trade. Among these,
Immanuel Johann Gerhard Scheller (1735!
1803) has to be mentioned first; he based his
large dictionary on Forcellinis Lexicon, but
enlarged it significantly with his own materials. It was published in two volumes in the
first edition of 1783 and saw its largest circulation in the third edition of 1804 in five volumes. Schellers aim was to present the lexicon of the antique authors (up to Beda and
Paulus Diaconus, i.e. until the beginning of
the 8th century) in its historic development,
i.e. to show the development of meaning by the
arrangement of citations. Thanks to this consistent focus on historical semantics, Scheller occupies an important role in the history of lexicography.
In 1792, Scheller published a shortened
Handlexicon, which carried over the citations
given in the large edition, but only gave the
author, not the precise location. To a certain
extent, this kind of shortening, which is from
todays perspective unsatisfactory, left its
mark on the history of concise dictionaries
published in Germany. Schellers successor
Georg Heinrich Lnemann (1780!1830) revised the successive new editions of the Handlexicon (1806, 1812, 1816, 1819), until Karl
Ernst Georges (1806!1895) became a co-editor in 1828. Until 1861, K. E. Georges was
only mentioned as a new reviser, and it was
only from the edition of 1869/1870, counted
as the seventh edition, that the opus obtained
a new title Ausfhrliches lateinisch-deutsches
und deutsch-lateinisches Handwrterbuch. Since
then, it has been published exclusively under
Karl Ernst Georges name. With the eighth
edition revised by Georges son Heinrich
Georges (two volumes, 1913 and 1918), the
Latinistics of the German speaking countries
had a reference work at their disposal which
met scientific requirements and was of manageable extent at the same time. Though die

628
Neuauflage gegenber der alten eher einen

Rckschritt bedeutete [the new edition rather
meant a step backwards compared to the old
one] (Hofmann 1913: 665!666), it has been
reprinted several times since.
With the revised translation of Georges
work published by Ferruccio Calonghi in
1891 and re-edited in Turin still in 1950, Italian users obtained a reliable dictionary.
A significant shortcoming of Georges
Handwrterbuch however, is owed to the absence of precise items in the citations, which
significantly reduces its usefulness, especially
with classics such as Cicero or Cesar. Two
dictionaries fill this gap, though of course
they cannot compete with Georges dictionary regarding the organization of lemmata:
Wilhelm Freunds (1806!1894) four-volume
dictionary Wrterbuch der lateinischen Sprache
published between 1834 and 1845 and Reinhold Klotzs (1807!1870) two-volume dictionary Handwrterbuch der lateinischen Sprache finished in 1857. Freunds dictionary is an
adaptation of Forcellinis work for German
users. It obtained special importance less because of its lexicographic significance, but
rather because of its methodological introduction, in which etymological and historical
basic conditions are clearly presented as the
basis for the structure of the articles, which
were prevailingly meant to become the subject of a monography of their own; minor
historic concepts were to be assigned to main
historic concepts. The dictionary itself does
not always follow these noble principles, but
it provides the places of citations, which are
missing in Scheller and Georges. Wilhelm
Freund is also the last considerable author of
a Latin dictionary which considers Medieval
and Neo-Latin to a significant extent besides
the antique lexicon: Gesamtwrterbuch der lateinischen Sprache zum Schul- und Privat-Gebrauch (1844). Originally Reinhold Klotz had
intended to write a dictionary of medium extent based on word collections of his own,
which was supposed to occupy a position between the larger thesauri and the largest school
dictionaries, and the first three fascicles (A
and B) published in 1847 were kept accordingly. After that work came to a halt, it was
only after further staff (Fr. Lbker; E. E. Hudemann) were brought in that this work
could be finished, of course with lesser demands on quality and always stronger recourses to Freund (Krmer 1978: 250!251).
It is possible to thoroughly record the citations of writers with this work, and if
Georges and Klotzs indications are brought

together, satisfactory results regarding the
meaning and use of a Latin word can be obtained. An Italian edition of the Klotz, attempted by Alberto Grilli in the 1970s, was
unfortunately stopped after three fascicles,
the last entry being Aeolicum.
For the English speaking audience, adaptations of Freunds Wrterbuch have become
an institution. In 1850, E. A. Andrews had an
adaptation of this German work published,
Harpers Latin Dictionary, in New York. It
was a large success, and so it was decided
that there should be a new edition, for which
Wilhelm Freund could be celebrated as a
member of staff. After having revised the first
letters, the staff decided in favour of a thoroughly revised edition: Charles Short was
given the letter A, Charlton T, and Lewis the
rest of the alphabet. The edition of 1879 was
published at Oxford Clarendon Press. There
were many reprints, and it remained the standard work of reference in the English speaking world until the publication of the Oxford
Latin Dictionary, which covers the time span
from Late Antiquity to today.
Likewise, Freunds Wrterbuch was edited
for the French audience: N. Theil had a French
edition published in 1929.
In the 20th century, there were only reprints of the Latin concise dictionaries of the
19th century, but no really new efforts, apart
from one exception. This was due to the fact
that no one dared to revise a bilingual Latin
dictionary before the completion of the ThLL.
The exception is the ambitious Oxford Latin
Dictionary which had been undergoing preparatory work since 1933 under the direction
of P. G. W. Glare, and was published completely from 1968 to 1982. This dictionary is
based on its own collection of sources, which is
neither obliged to the tradition of Lewis and
Short, nor to the data of the ThLL. It covers
the time span from the beginnings of Latin
literature to the end of the 2nd century AD.
The Oxford English Dictionary serves as a
methodological and formal model: Within
each section or sub-section, quotations are
arranged in chronological order, the first example showing, where practicable, the earliest known instance of that particular sense or
usage (OLD 1982: V). The items giving the
places of citations, as in the newest editions,
turn this dictionary into a very reliable instrument, and often the semantic analysis of
lexical meanings is more refined than the
items given in the ThLL. Semantic distinc-

629
tions are, however, often arranged one after

the other if there is no superordinate derivational criterion found; longer articles are
quite confusing, since there are no sub-titles
summarizing several similar meanings (Wieland 1969: 751).
An attempt to publish a modern bilingual
Latin-Spanish concise dictionary (Diccionario latino) was stopped after only two fascicles at the lemma acute (Cantueso 1988).
4.4.2. Greek
Concerning Greek, there is also a need for
reliable concise dictionaries, all the more
since Stephanus revised editions have not
fulfilled all the expectations of the users. In
view of the multiple number of texts in comparison to Latin, it is not possible to achieve
a comparable completeness in the consideration of material. Franz Passow (1786!1833)
published a study on the arrangement of
Greek dictionaries in 1812 in which he requires a complete documentation of word
history from the first to the last instances
with items in the places of citations and in
which he suggests an etymological structuring of the dictionary. He gained practical experience with dictionaries while revising and
supplementing the third (1819/1823) and
fourth (1831) editions of a Greek-German
concise dictionary with special consideration
to Homer and Hesiod by Johann Gottlob
Schneider (1797/1798); it was clear that the
practical need for an alphabetical order triumphed over the etymological principle. After Passows death, Valentin Christian Friedrich Rost (1790!1862), who had already
published a few school dictionaries, worked
upon a much enlarged edition which, in collaboration with five more revisers, finally led
to a four-volume dictionary (1841) that has
remained the most extensive Greek-German
dictionary to date and has been re-edited
again and again (lastly in 2008!). In the several editions of Passows dictionary, there
was an attempt to connect the single special
meanings of a word by semantic bridges
(Zgusta/Georgacas 1990, 1699) in order to
explain supposed homonymy as a result of
meanings which were related from an historic
perspective. W. Crnert attempted a thorough revision of Passows dictionary shortly
before the Second World War, but he did not
manage to get beyond three fascicles (a!
ajna-), which to date represent the most comprehensive attempt at a Greek dictionary.
Wilhelm Papes (1807!1854) concise dictionary of the Greek language saw a larger public
success than the several editions of Passows
dictionary; it comprised a two-volume concise
Greek!German dictionary (1842), a dictionary of Greek proper names (1842), and a
German!Greek dictionary (1845). This already shows that this work has arisen from
an ambitious school context. The aim is to
completely record the classical usage up to
Aristotle with single examples from later
times, so that the historic development of the
use of a word becomes transparent. Citations
are given for the classical time, for the later
time there often is only a hint Sp(tere)
[later ones]. Mostly, citations are kept short.
Since then, revisions of Papes dictionary
have been reprinted several times; Maximilian Sengebusch (1820!1881) revised the appellatives in 1880 and Gustav Eduard Benseler (1806!1868), who also was a collaborator with the Passow revision, the proper names
from 1863 to 1875.
Passows dictionary is to be regarded as
the ancestor of Greek concise dictionaries,
and it is still the major lexical work of reference in Graecistics today. Henry George Liddell (1811!1898), inventor of Alice in Wonderland made famous by Lewis Carroll, and
Robert Scott (1811!1887) took Passow as a
starting point for the revision of their GreekEnglish lexicon, which was published in its
first edition in 1843. Though Passow is
named in the title, it is not simply a translation of his dictionary, but from the beginning, facts drawn from Stephanus revised
edition and from Pape were incorporated. A
characteristic was that Passows semantic
bridges were kept up to the seventh edition
(1883), which included many new lemmata.
A completely new revision of the dictionary,
counted as the ninth edition, has been
planned in view of the material which had
enormously increased since the beginning of
the 20th century because of inscriptions and
papyri; it was edited by Henry Stuart Jones
(1867!1939) and published in fascicles between 1925 and 1940. Special areas of the
Greek lexicon were worked on by specialists;
the graecity treated was exactly described: the
complete lexicon of Greek, including inscriptions and papyri until and including the sixth
century AD, was to be recorded (approximately 1,300 sources of reference), excluding
however, Christian Patristic and authors belonging to Byzantinistics; likewise onomastics were excluded. The structure of the arti-

630
cles is supposed to illustrate the semantic development starting from a basic meaning.
Two supplements (1968; 1996) serve to correct some errors in the articles and above all
to work in the new material provided by
inscriptions and papyri. Thus, the dictionary
by Liddell/Scott/Jones is a work of topical interest, and it will remain the only complete
dictionary of antique Greek available for a
long time.
As for the excluded vocabulary of the
Church Fathers, there is a reference to a special concise dictionary which was planned as
a supplement, or companion, to the ninth
edition of Liddell and Scott (Lampe 1961:
V) from the beginning. The aim of this dictionary which, after time consuming preparatory works, has been directed by G. W. H.
Lampe since 1948, was twofold: first, all the
words which, for some reason, only appear
with Christian authors, should be recorded,
second, all the words of theological relevance
should be documented as fully as possible in
order to make the development of theological
tendencies within the lexicon transparent.
Thus, the Patristic Greek Lexicon (Lampe
1961) is not a dictionary to be used separately, but a supplementary work. The relation of this work to Liddell/Scott/Jones demands special attention. No word which is
well attested in the latter and has no particular interest for the reader of the Fathers is
included in this book. The absence of a word
must on no account be understood as an indication that it is not used by the patristic
authors. In order, too, to make more space
available for articles of major interest, the
common meanings of any word, already
noted by Liddell/Scott/Jones, are not repeated here unless they are of significance for
patristic study. Thus a common word to
which Liddell/Scott/Jones devote a long article may appear in this Lexicon with only one,
and that an unusual, meaning (Lampe 1961:
IX). It is to be emphasized that G. W. H.
Lampes dictionary is a pioneering work; the
only predecessor to be named is a work from
the 17th century which is rather more theologically than linguistically orientated (Suicerus 1682).
In more recent time, two more concise dictionaries are worth mentioning besides the
Oxford enterprises. The first one is the
Greek-Italian Vocabolario, which was edited
by Franco Montanari and published in 1995.
In 2004, an improved new edition (with
CD-ROM) was put on the market. Unlike
Liddell/Scott/Jones, this dictionary also comprises the lexicon of the Church Fathers to a
large extent, as well as the most important
proper names. The lemmata are accompanied
by brief etymological indications. Thanks to
a printing technique which works with bold
type, italics etc., and thanks to the omission
of longer citations, this work does not exceed
the extent of a large volume. With words
which are not rare, only the oldest instance
is given, then ecc. refers to their further prevalence. The single items within a lemma proceed from the set basic meaning to supposed
secondary developments, also in those cases
in which the latter are attested earlier.
The second new concise dictionary is of
much larger dimensions, and it is only approximately one third finished. It is the Diccionario griego!espanol (# DGE ), on which
a large team works under the direction of
Francisco Adrados; up to now six fascicles
(1989!2002) have been published (up to
ejkpelakavvw). This concise dictionary claims
to record the lexicon of the authors from Homer until the year 600 AD, including Patristic, epigraphic, papyrologic, and numismatic
evidence, glosses and the grammarians; these
are approximately 2,500 sources of reference
on the whole (as opposed to 1,300 in Liddell/
Scott/Jones). The lexicon of proper nouns is
also considered in detail. The editors committee checked all the instances according to
the newest decisive criteria. The lemmata are
arranged according to semantic criteria, and
within these segments according to chronology. Graphic, phonetic, morphological and
dialectal deviations from the form of the
lemma are indicated. As for the basic words,
a brief etymological explanation and, if possible, a reference to the Linear B form conclude the article. In the latest fascicles, use
was made of the possibilities electronic resources offered. When it will be finished, the
DGE will be the largest and most reliable dictionary of antique graecity; it will be a kind
of substitute for a modern lexicographical
Thesaurus linguae Graecae, which will never
be carried out because of its material quantity.
4.5. Onomastic dictionaries
The idea to compile a comprehensive dictionary of Greek (in the style of Pape 1863!
1875) was abandoned in the 20th century because of the amount and the confusion of
inscriptions and papyrus sources. A dictio-

631
nary of personal names, which specially gives

the sources of epigraphic and numismatic
material arranged according to regions (Fraser/Matthews 1987 ff.) has been more than
one half published. The personal names of
Greek Egypt found in papyri are available
through lists of names (Preisigke 1922; Foraboschi 1971). For Greek place names in Egypt,
a commentated dictionary of citations (Calderini/Daris 1935!2006) is available which
offers a link to demotic parallel sources and
geographic indications on places and on archaeological discoveries.
The latest completely published Latin onomastic dictionary is Egidio Forcellinis (1771)
Onomasticon in Giuseppe Perins revision
(1940), which is not very thorough. Throughout the publication of the ThLL, names were
treated together with appellativa in volumes
I and II (A!B); for the letters C and D a
proper Onomasticon (1907!1923) was published. After that, revision was postponed for
an indefinite time because it means historioprosopographical rather than philological
work. Thus, concise dictionaries, which take
into account proper names only modestly,
are the only lexicographical sources so far !
unless one wants to trust the items given in
the 84 volumes of the large Pauly, which has
not been compiled under the aspects of a linguistic dictionary.
4.6. Reverse dictionaries
In certain areas in the investigation of the
classic languages, there is a great need for reverse dictionaries because with their help, it is
possible to supplement texts which are handed
down incompletely.
For Greek, two reverse dictionaries have
to be named: Kretschmer/Locker 1944 treats
the appellative lexicon starting from Liddell/
Scott/Joness dictionary; Dornseiff/Hansen
1957 renders the supplement for onomastics.
Concerning Latin, the second part Voces ordinantur a tergo (Gradenwitz 1904: 279!
546) of the index of Latin words should be
used, in which the words recorded in Georges
and words drawn from different sources are
brought together.
4.7. The Thesaurus Linguae Latinae
Of course concise dictionaries were only a
temporary solution since Graecistics and Latinistics, as taught at universities, remained interested in a more or less complete large dictionary following Henri Estiennes tradition
for Greek and Robert Estiennes and Egidio
Forcellinis tradition for Latin lexicography.

Towards the end of the 19th century, lexicographers were conscious of the fact that an extensive edition of the lexicon of antique texts
could no longer be the work of a single person. The project of compiling a new Thesaurus Linguae Graecae was soon postponed
considering the amount of linguistic material,
but for Latin, an extensive large dictionary
was still thought to be achievable.
In 1857, Bavarian Latinists managed to
make King Maximilian II leave a certain
amount of money at their disposal, but it was
only when Eduard Wlfflin (1831!1908)
founded the Archiv fr lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik as a medium for preliminary essays and above all, for sample articles
in 1884, that the plan to compile a Latin large
dictionary became more real. In 1893, the German speaking academies of Berlin, Gttingen,
Leipzig, Munich and Vienna decided to entrust a group of scholars with the preparation
of a Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. It was agreed
to set up a complete card index for Latin
texts up to the middle of the second century
AD and upon having specialists draw rich excerpts from the later texts up to approximately 600 AD (in the course of time, those
works which were not too extensive were also
registered in the form of complete card indexes). The materials were brought together
in Munich in 1899; to date they form the basic stock of the Thesaurus card index archive,
which is constantly being enlarged. First, the
editors thought of a time span of five years
for the collection of the material and of fifteen years for the compilation; they more or
less abided by the five years of basic material
collection, the compilation of articles, however, proved to be much more demanding
than presumed. Publication began in 1900; at
the beginning of the First World War, the letter C was finished and D and F were being
worked on; today P is almost complete (N is
still missing). The articles (written in Latin
with paraphrases of meaning in Latin) are
mostly very extensive, they rather represent
word monographies. In the more recent volumes, an overview of the contents precedes
each article. The lemmata are kept in the
usual form, but then any possible orthographical and morphological variants are
given, utterances by antique authors on the
respective lexeme and on its meaning are
quoted and citations from glosses are given;
there are indications of the temporal appearance of the respective word and of (near) syn-

632
onyms. The proper main part of each article

consists in presenting the citation material,
which is subdivided into segments. The segments succeed each other according to semantic and factual criteria, the order being
from general to particular. The order within
the segments is strictly chronological, at least
in the more recent volumes: the earliest citation is given first. At the end of the articles,
there are hints about synonyms and antonyms, as well as a summarizing hint about
the presence of the respective lexeme in the
Romance languages. The ThLL is a project
aimed at giving as complete a picture as possible of the antique Latin lexicon (including
epigraphic and subliterary materials). Thus,
it is obvious that the articles often become
less clear (and subsequently that beginners in
the use of dictionaries are simply asked too
much of). Moreover, the fact that there is no
translation into a modern language is a shortcoming, considering that there is always less
knowledge of Latin.
4.8. Electronic dictionaries
Electronic aids proved relatively early to be
useful in the lexicography of antique languages. Already in the early 1960s, complete
concordances to Latin authors were worked
out in Lttich by the means of a punch card
system (Kramer 2004: 24-25). Working with
entirely electronic systems however properly
began in the 1970s. First, work upon the
complete recording of the lexicon of as many
Greek texts as possible, soon called the
electronic Thesaurus linguae Graecae, which
began in Irvine (USA) in 1972, has to be
mentioned, and with a little less enthusiasm,
work on the recording of Latin texts was taking place at Duke University. It was only
around the turn of the millennium that first
electronic versions of dictionaries were available on the basis of printed versions.
Concerning the current stock of electronic
dictionaries, there are two technically different possibilities of access: the older way of
accessing the material is to obtain the data
on ones Personal Computer via CD-ROM,
the more modern one is to obtain them by
entering an address on the Internet.
First, there are electronic versions of dictionaries on CD-ROM which also exist in
print. In the digital library of Directmedia,
volume 69 of Georges Latin-German dictionary has been available since 2007. To Franco
Montanaris Italian-Greek dictionary, a CDROM has been added since the second edi-
tion (2004), with an instruction for use for

beginners in the print version. There is also a
CD-ROM version of Liddell and Scotts
Greek-English dictionary, which was compiled for the Libronix Digital Library within
the bounds of Logos Bible Software.
Full text collections are something particular within the electronic field, since the distribution of words and the contexts of their use
can be researched. They are no dictionaries
in the strict sense, but rather a kind of concordance and frequency list, but for the experienced language historian they offer unthought-of possibilities. The electronic Thesaurus linguae Graecae, begun at the University of California (Irvine) in 1972, has proceeded most; originally, it was supposed to
cover all of Greek literature from Homer to
the year 600 AD, but in the meantime, it has
been extended to the end of the Byzantine
Empire in 1453. The ancient director of the
project described the objective as follows:
Convert the texts into a format that allows
for quick and efficient consultation. Do not
generate a lexicographical product fixed along
the lines of the Munich TLL, but create an
organic product that to be sure can be
used for lexicographical purposes, but that
will also allow for a multiplicity of other
scholarly pursuits (Brunner 1994: 604). Properly speaking, it is a collection of materials
added to a dictionary, not a dictionary itself,
i.e. an aid which for relatively rare words
gives the citations with unbelievable reliability, but with frequent words with ample
meanings it is of little use, unless the user
wants to take the role of an author of dictionaries. From 1985 to 2000, this Thesaurus
linguae Graecae was available on CD-ROM,
since April 2001 it has been available on the
Internet for subscribers (www.tlg.uci.edu).
The full texts of approximately 12,000 works
by 3,800 authors are offered, a total of 99
million words. Work is ongoing as every quarter of a year supplements are added.
A comparable collection of Latin texts was
compiled under the auspices of the Packard
Humanities Institute. The Packard Humanities Institutes CD-ROM 5.3 contains virtually all of Latin literature up to A.D. 200,
including the later writers Servius, Porphyry,
Zeno and Justinian. It also provides users access to several Bible versions (King James,
Revised Standard Version, Latin Vulgate, Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and the Coptic New
Testament), and Miltons Paradise Lost. A
list of the authors which are taken into

633
account is available on the Internet: www.

indiana.edu/%7eletrs/text-tools/text-lists/
phibibliog.html.
A collection which also includes late antique texts, but which is more difficult to access electronically, is available on CD-ROM
under the title Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina. Any Latin texts published in the Bibliotheca Teubneriana since 1999 are electronically accessible; meanwhile there are several
improved new editions. With the same system, the three CD-ROM s of the CLCLT are
readable; they record the lexicon of the
Christian authors. In contrast, the electronic
versions of the Patrologia Latina and the Patrologia Graeco-Latina (as well on CD-ROM
as on the Internet, pld.chadwyck.co.uk) offer
access only to the images of the pages.
The electronic resources can be most easily
accessed via the portal of the American Perseus project (www.perseus.tufts.edu), via the
Berlin Katalog der Internet-Ressourcen fr
die Klassische Philologie (www.kirke.huberlin-de), and via the Bolognese Rassegna
degli Strumenti Informatici per lo Studio dell
Antichita` Classica (www.rassegna.unibo.it/
index.html). The Electronic Resources for
Classicists of the University of California in
Irvine (www.tlg.uci.edu/index/resources/html)
are also clearly structured.
Proper dictionaries are only available as
images of a printed edition on the Internet,
at best as supplements to the printed edition.
First, the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae has to
be mentioned, which keeps pace with the
proceedings of the print version in the prevailing new editions since 2003. The printed
text is coded electronically by means of a
costly coding programme: research in the extensive collections of citation sources can be
done very comfortably, there are hyperlinks
to the Index librorum and to parallel sources,
sources can be ordered alphabetically etc.,
but there are difficulties concerning installation, at least for Mac computers (Lhken
2003). A digital version of Lewis and Shorts
Latin dictionary has been compiled within
the project Perseus (www.perseus.tufts.edu/
cgi-bin/lexindex?lookup#verro&db#ls). An
electronic version of the Oxford Latin Dictionary is being prepared by Logos Bible Software. Until then, the rather modest approach
offered by the Ancient Greek-English Lexicon
of the Faculty of Classics of the University
of Cambridge (accessible via www.classics.
cam.ak.uk) has to be sufficient: it offers an
extract of intermediate size from the Oxford
Latin Dictionary, said to be suitable for students.

For Greek, there are few dictionaries on
the Internet. The Diccionario griego-espanol
(Adrados 1989 ff.) is accessible via www.filol.
csic.es/dge/blg/blg-s.htm.
5.
Selected bibliography
Adler, A. (1928!1938): Suidae lexicon 1!5. Leipzig.

Adrados, F. R. (1989 ff.): Diccionario Griego!Espanol. Madrid (6 fascicles until now, aejkpelekavw).
Aura Jorro, F. (1985/1993) (bajo la direccion de
Francisco R. Adrados): Diccionario Micenico
(DMic.). Vol. I Madrid 1985; vol. II Madrid 1993.
Bartonfk, A. (2003): Handbuch des mykenischen
Griechisch. Heidelberg.
Blumenthal, A. v. (1930): Hesych-Studien. Untersuchungen zur Vorgeschichte der griechischen
Sprache nebst lexikographischen Beitrgen. Stuttgart.
Brunner, T. F. (1994): The Thesaurus Linguae
Graecae: A Unifying Force. In: Blow-Jacobsen,
A. (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrology. Copenhagen, 604!608.
Bude, G. (1529/1548): Commentarii linguae Graecae. 1Paris: Josse Bade 1529; 1Paris: Robertus Stephanus 1548.
Calderoni, A./Daris, S. (1985!): Dizionario dei
nomi geografici e topografici dellEgitto greco!romano. Vol. I/1: Cairo 1935; vol. 1/2: Madrid 1966;
vol. II: Milano 1973/1975; vol. III: 1978/1980/1982;
vol. IV: 1983/1984/1986; vol. V: 1987; Supplemento
primo: 1988; Supplemento secondo: Bonn 1996;
Supplemento terzo Pisa 2003; Supplemento quarto:
Pisa/Roma 2007.
Calepinus, A. (1502!1590): Dictionarium. Reggio
dEmilia 11502; Venezia 21506. Dictionum Latinarum et Graecarum interpres perspicacissimus.
Wien 1513. Il dittionario di Ambrogio Calepino
dalla lingua latina nella volgare. Venezia 1552.
Pentaglottos. Antwerpen 1546. Dictionarium hexaglottum, [...] in quo respondent Latinis vocabulis
Graeca, Italica, Gallica, Hispanica, Germanica.
Basel 1567. Dictionarium undecim linguarum; respondent autem Latinis vocabulis Hebraica,
Graeca, Gallica, Italica, Germanica, Belgica, Hispanica, Polonica, Ungarica, Angelica. Basel 1590.
Calonghi, F. (1891!1950): Dizionario della lingua
italiana. Torino 11891; 21929; 31950.
Cantueso, C. (1988): Diccionario latino. Madrid
(only 2 fascicles up to acute).

634
Chadwick, J. (1958): The Decipherment of Linear

B. New York. (Latest edition: Cambridge 1995).
Scheller und G. H. Lnemann neu bearbeitet.

Leipzig.
Chadwick, J./Baumbach, L. (1963/1972): Mycenean Greek Vocabulary. In: Glotta 41, 1963, 157!
271; Glotta 49, 1972, 151-190.
Georges, K. E. (1869!1918): Ausfhrliches lateinisch!deutsches und deutsch!lateinisches Wrterbuch. Leipzig 61869!1870; 71880!1882; 81913!
1918 (reprinted several times).
Crnert, W. (1912!1914): Passows Wrterbuch

der griechischen Sprache. Completely revised edition. Gttingen (only 3 fascicles).
Dihle, A. (1989): Die griechische und lateinische
Literatur der Kaiserzeit. Mnchen.
Dyck, A. R. (1987): The Glossographoi. In: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 91, 119!160.
Dornseiff, F./Hansen, B. (1957): Rcklufiges Wrterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen. Berlin.
Estienne, H. (1572/1580): Thesaurus Graecae linguae. 5 vols. Paris 11572; 21580. Revised editions,
8 vols. London 1816!1828; 9 vols. Paris 1831!
1865.
Estienne, R. (1531/1536/1543): Dictionarium seu
Latinae linguae Thesaurus, cum Gallica fere interpretatione. Paris 11531; 21536; 31543. Revisions:
London (4 vols., 1734!1735); Basel (4 vols.,
1740!1743); Leipzig (1749).
Foraboschi, D. (1971): Onomasticon alterum papyrologicum. Supplemento al Namenbuch die F.
Preisigke. Milano.
Forcellini, E. (1771!1831): Lexicon totius Latininatis, consilio et cura Jacobi Facciolati, opera et
studio Aegidii Forcellini, alumni seminarii Patavini, lucubratum. 4 vols. Padova 11771; 21805 (J.
Furlanetto (1816): Appendix); 31827-1831 # Leipzig 1839 # Prati 1839!1845; 6 vols. (newly revised
by Francesco Corradini und Giuseppe Perin), Padova 41940 (reprint: Bologna 1965).
Fraser, P. M./Matthews, E. (1987!2005): A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Vol. I (The Aegean
Islands; Cyprus; Crenaica), Oxford 1987; II (Attica), 1994; III A (The Peloponnese, Western
Greece, Sicily, and Magna Graecia), 1997; III B
(Central Greece: From the Megarid to Thessaly),
2000; IV (Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Regions of
the Black Sea), 2005.
Georges, K. E. (1891): Dizionario latino!italiano,

traduzione con aggiunte condotta da Ferruccio Calonghi. Torino.
Gesner, J. M. (1849): Novus linguae et eruditionis
Romanae Thesaurus post Ro. Stephani et aliorum,
nuper etiam in Anglia eruditissimorum hominum
curas digestus, locupletatus, emendatus. 4 vols.
Leipzig.
Glare, P. G. W. (1982): Oxford Latin Dictionary.
Oxford.
Goetz, G. (1888!1923): Corpus Glossariorum
Latinarum (# CGL) 1!7. Leipzig.
Gradenwitz, O. (1904): Laterculi vocum Latinarum. Voces Latinas et a fronte et a tergo ordinandas curavit O. G. Leipzig.
Grilli, A. (1975!1979): Dizionario della lingua latina. Brescia (only 3 fascicles published up to Aeolicum).
Hansen, D. U. (1998): Das attizistische Lexikon
des Moeris. Quellenkritische Untersuchung und
Editino. Berlin/New York.
Hasitzka, M. R. M. (1990): Neue Texte und Dokumentation zum Koptisch-Unterricht. Wien.
Hederich, B. (1722): Novum lexicon manuale
Graeco!Latinum. Leipzig.
Henrichs, A./Mller, W. (1976): Apollonios Sophistes, Homerlexikon. In: Hanson, A. E. (ed.), Collectanea Papyrologica. Texts Published in Honor
of H. C. Youtie. Bonn, 27!51.
Hermann, G. (1827): Censura novae editionis Thesauri Stephaniani. In: Opuscula 2, 217!251.
Hofmann, J. B. (1913/1915): Rezension zu K. E.
Georges, Ausfhrliches Lateinisch!Deutsches
Handwrterbuch. In: Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 33, 1913, 659!666; 35, 1915, 1542!1546.
Freund, W. (1834!1845): Wrterbuch der lateinischen Sprache. 4 vols. Leipzig.
Klotz, R. (1857): Handwrterbuch der lateinischen

Sprache. 2 vols. Braunschweig 11857; 21859; 31862
(reprinted several times).
Freund, W. (1844!1845): Gesamtwrterbuch der

lateinischen Sprache zum Schul- und Privat-Gebrauch. 2 vols. Breslau.
Kramer, J./Kramer, B. (1979): La filologia classica. Bologna.
Freund, W. (1929): Grand dictionnaire de la langue

latine, traduction francaise par N. Theil. 3 vols.
Paris 1929.
Kramer, J. (1996): I glossari tardo-antichi di tradizione papiracea. In: Hamesse, J. (ed.), Les manuscrits des lexiques et glossaires de lAntiquite tardive a` la fin du Moyen age. Louvain-la-Neuve,
23!55.
Georges, K. E. (1831): Lateinisch!deutsches und

deutsch!lateinisches Handwrterbuch, nach I. J. G.
Kramer, J. (1983): Glossaria bilinguia. Bonn.

635

Kramer, J. (2001): Glossaria bilinguia altera.
Mnchen/Leipzig.
merischen und hesiodischen Sprachgebrauchs ausgearbeitet von Franz Passow. 2 vols. Leipzig.
Kramer, J. (2007): Vulgrlateinische Alltagsdokumente auf Papyri, Ostraka, Tfelchen und Inschriften. Berlin/New York.
Passow, F. (1841/1847/1852/1857): Handwrterbuch der griechischen Sprache, neu bearbeitet und

zeitgem umgestaltet von Val. Chr. Fr. Rost (und
anderen). 2 vols. in 4 parts. Leipzig.
Krmer, D. (1978): Grammatik contra Lexikon:

rerum potiri. In: Gymnasium 85, 239!258.
Kretschmer, P./Locker, E. (1944): Rcklufiges Wrterbuch der griechischen Sprache. Gttingen
1
1944; 21963.
Lampe, G. W. H. (1961): A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford.
Lejeune, M. (1964): Index inverse du grec mycenien. Paris.
Lewis, C. T./Short, C. (1879): A Latin Dictionary
founded on Andrews Edition of Freunds Latin
Dictionary. Oxford 1879; many reprints.
Liddell, H. G./Scott, R. (1940!1996): A Greek!
English Lexicon. A New Edition, Revised and
Augmented throughout by Henry Stuart Jones.
Oxford 1940. A Supplement. Edited by E. A. Barber. Oxford 1968. Revised Supplement. Edited by
P. G. W. Glare. Oxford 1996.
Lindsay, W. M. (1926!1930): Glossaria Latina 1!
5. Paris.
Lopez Facal, J. (1977): Historia de la lexicografa
griega moderna. In: Adrados, F. R. et al. (eds.),
Introduccion a la lexicografa griega. Madrid.
Preisigke, F. (1922): Namenbuch, enthaltend alle

griechischen, lateinischen, hebrischen, arabischen
und sonstigen semitischen und nichtsemitischen
Menschennamen, soweit sie in griechischen Urkunden (Papyri, Ostraka, Inschriften, Mumienschildern usw.) gyptens sich vorfinden. Heidelberg:
authors edition.
Quecke, H. (1997): Eine griechisch!gyptische
Wortliste vermutlich des 3. Jh. v. Chr. (P. Heid.
Inv.-Nr. G 414). In: Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 116, 67!80.
Sanchi, L. A. (2006): Les Commentaires de la
langue grecque de Guillaume Bude. Gene`ve.
Scapula, J. (1579): Lexicon Graeco!Latinum novum. Basel 11579; 21580; 31589; 41594; 51600;
61665; London 1637; Amsterdam 1652; London
1820.
Scheller, I. J. G. (1783!1784): Ausfhrliches und
mglichst vollstndiges lateinisch!deutsches und
deutsch!lateinisches Lexikon. 2 vols. Leipzig
11783!1784; 3 vols., 21798; 5 vols., 31805.
Montanari, F. (1995): Vocabolario della lingua

greca. Torino 11995, 22004.
Scheller, I. J. G. (1792/1796/1807): Lateinisch!

deutsches und deutsch!lateinisches Handlexikon
vornehmlich fr Schulen. Leipzig 11792; 21796; revised by G. H. Lnemann. Leipzig 1807.
Morpurgo Davies, A. (1963): Mycenaeae Graecitatis lexicon. Roma.
Schmidt, M. (1862): Hesychi Alexandrini lexicon

4. Halle (Mauk).
Nickau, K. (1972): Zenodotos. In: Paulys Realencyclopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften X A. Mnchen, 23!45.
Schneider, J. G. (1797/1798): Kritisches griechisch!

deutsches Handwrterbuch. Zllichau/Jena/Leipzig.
Pape, W. (1842!1880): Handwrterbuch der Griechischen Sprache. 4 vols.: I!II: Griechisch!deutsches Handwrterbuch; III: Wrterbuch der Griechischen Eigennamen. Braunschweig 11842; 21849;
31880 und 1863!1875; IV: Deutsch!griechisches
Wrterbuch zum Schulgebrauch, 1845.
Passow, F. (1812): ber Zweck, Anlage und Ergnzung griechischer Wrterbcher. Berlin.
Passow, F. (1819/1823): J. G. Schneiders Handwrterbuch der griechischen Sprache nach der dritten
Ausgabe des grern griechischdeutschen Wrterbuchs mit besonderer Bercksichtigung des ho-
Stephanus, H./Stephanus, R.: cf. Estienne, H./

Estienne, R.
Suicerus (Schweitzer), J. C. (1682): Thesaurus ecclesiasticus. Amsterdam.
Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (1900 ff.). Leipzig.
Ventris, M./Chadwick, J. (1956): Documents in
Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge 11956; 21973.
Wieland, H. (1969/1977/1980/1983): Rezensionen
zum Oxford Latin Dictionary, Gnomon 41, 1969,
746!752; 49, 1977, 136!141; 52, 1980, 53!54; 55,
1983, 586!589.
Johannes Kramer, Trier (Germany)


The Ancient Languages - Dicionaries-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ancient Languages - Dicionaries-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

619

38. The ancient languages of Greek and Latin

38. The ancient languages of Greek and Latin

The periods of Greek and Latin language

The periods of Greek and Latin

The following contribution will examine the

divide linguistic periods in the following.

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

literature properly begins around 250 BC.

In the course of his excavations in Knossos

nese with Pylos and the Argolis (Mycenae,

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

38. The ancient languages of Greek and Latin

Latin transcription of the Linear B signs, but

Antiquity and Medieval glossaries

for chorale lyrics, Ionic-Attic for prose and

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

noticeable words (Nickau 1972: 40; Pfeiffer

versions Apollonios Sophistes (1st century

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

38. The ancient languages of Greek and Latin

Diogenianos of Herakleias dictionary is also

poet who brought up linguistic problems in

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

a much higher level in Greek, but instead in

proximately 50 Latin-Greek (and occasionally Greek-Latin) word pairs written about

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

38. The ancient languages of Greek and Latin

an alphabetical dictionary first and with one

Greek and Latin dictionaries from

4.1 Greek and Latin dictionaries up to

Latin lexicography likewise was no longer

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

weaknesses of this work, he soon turned to

in its structure, focuses on legal vocabulary,

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

38. The ancient languages of Greek and Latin

One of the disadvantages of the Thesaurus

part of names, the revision of which had been

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

Neuauflage gegenber der alten eher einen

Georges and Klotzs indications are brought

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

38. The ancient languages of Greek and Latin

tions are, however, often arranged one after

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

38. The ancient languages of Greek and Latin

nary of personal names, which specially gives

Forcellinis tradition for Latin lexicography.

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

onyms. The proper main part of each article

tion (2004), with an instruction for use for

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

38. The ancient languages of Greek and Latin

account is available on the Internet: www.

Latin Dictionary, said to be suitable for students.

Adler, A. (1928!1938): Suidae lexicon 1!5. Leipzig.

!eeerrreeeiiitttgggeeesssttteeellllllttt vvvooonnn ||| UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttttt HHHeeeiiidddeeelllbbbeeerrrggg

Chadwick, J. (1958): The Decipherment of Linear

Scheller und G. H. Lnemann neu bearbeitet.

Crnert, W. (1912!1914): Passows Wrterbuch

Georges, K. E. (1891): Dizionario latino!italiano,