Brill's Dictionary

Greek Learning Greek
1

Brill is offering a new Ancient Greek-English dictionary, which is a translation of Franco Montanari’s Vocabolario della lingua greca. The translation was performed under the auspices of The Center for Hellenic Studies here in Washington, DC. The price in dollars, $125, doesn’t seem unreasonable for a work of this nature.

http://www.brill.com/products/book/brill-dictionary-ancient-greek

I’d appreciate hearing from anyone who is familiar with the Italian original or who knows anything about this project, either in this thread or in a private message.

Thanks!

Bill W.

2

I use the Italian dictionary now and again, but generally stick to LSJ. LSJ may be a little out of date even with its Supplement Addenda, but it really is an excellent dictionary. The Vocabolario does win on weakly attested words, however (an independent ongoing project at Montanari’s Aristarchus site), and on later texts. But even in Italy LSJ retains primacy.

3

So this new Brill dictionary came out last September. What are your experiences of it? I have not seen it, but apparently pages 514—547 are missing. How is it to use? Is there still place for LSJ?

Next we are to wait the new Cambridge dictionary.

4

I have bought the new Brill dictionary and find it very helpful. It is much better laid out than LSJ and easier to read. It is also a welcome change not to have fight through 19th century idiom. Its a pity the electronic version is only available as an expensive subscription.

It is not a translation of the Italian original. As it says in the preface “it is to be emphasized that the lexicon is not a translation of the italian definitions…the English version includes a not insignificant number of new lemmata.” It takes account of the 2013 Italian new edition but the authors have not systematically compared all the entries with the Italian."

The authors also warn that as its a first edition there are bound to be some infelicities of expression.

5

@Seneca2008

Can you post some images of example entries? I couldn’t find a decent preview. The digital edition sounds interesting to me.

6

@jeidsath

Apparently I am not allowed to post links until I have posted 10 times.

Nonetheless if you you go the brill site and navigate to brill-dictionary-ancient-greek you can download a pdf which gives the first 20 or so pages of the dictionary as well as an explanation of how the entries are structured. Let me know if have any difficulty finding this.

7

Oh, right there in front where I should have seen it. Thanks, seneca2008.

http://www.brill.com/sites/default/files/ftp/downloads/34732_Preview.pdf

I like the layout for verbs:

8

Thank you for your replies. I chatted with my Greek professor today, and he said that the new dictionary has been quite serviceable to him. The structure of many articles is apparently clearer than in LS. He mentioned some rare word (I forgot what) apud Nonnus which he duly found in this dictionary.

9

mwh mentioned this dictionary in another thread, and reminded me that I had been meaning to post on this ever since I got my copy a few days ago. I have some opinions, but I thought it group discussion might be more useful than my opinions.

So please suggest an entry, and I will take a photograph of said entry and link in this thread along with the same from the LSJ, so that we can discuss.

10

ἀραῖος and/or καταλαμβάνω.

11

Brill ἀραῖος:

LSJ ἀραῖος:

Brill καταλαμβάνω:
http://imgur.com/a/DPil9 (as an album, since the article is too long)

LSJ καταλαμβάνω (with supplement):
http://imgur.com/a/8yN7Q

12

I am responding here briefly to what Michael has said on another thread http://discourse.textkit.com/t/smyth-and-the-basics/13915/1 about the Brill dictionary.

I dont take what you say as an attack on brill. I think it is always wise to be cautious. I have spent several years arguing with a friend who insisted on giving priority to the first Italian edition. I always thought that for native English speakers to negotiate meaning through a third language was an unnecessary difficulty. I thought it was hard enough to map Greek meanings onto English. My friend was of course much more fluent in Italian and perhaps more unwilling to accept the difficulties.

I have had a cursory glance at the two entries for ἀγγέλλω. It is unsurprising that the citations are going to be similar as we are dealing with a fixed corpus which has been extensively analysed. Yet looking almost randomly LSJ gives the following taken from Perseus

Med., only pres., Τεύκρψ ἀγγέλλομαι εἶναι φίλος I announce myself to him as a friend, Id.Aj.1376.

Now allowing for the mistranscribed first word which should be τεύκρῳ and not Τεύκρψ (it is correct in the printed version) the translation of τεύκρῳ as an indirect object doesnt seem right. Brill has

➋ mid- dle (only pres.) to announce oneself: Τεύκρῳ ἀ έ ομαι εἶναι φίλος I announce that I am a friend of Teukros Soph. Ai. 1376

Brill here seems more accurate in translating the dative as a possessive. Indeed this is the way Jebb takes it.

I draw no general conclusions from this. I am glad we have another resource to add to the tried and tested LSJ.

13

Seneca, I have to disagree. Pace Jebb, Odysseus is saying not that he is a friend to Teucer, but a friend to Ajax, ὅσον τότ᾽ ἐχθρὸς ἦ – to the same extent that he was previously hostile to him, i.e., Ajax.

1376-7:

καὶ νῦν γε Τεύκρῳ τἀπὸ τοῦδ᾽ ἀγγέλλομαι,
ὅσον τότ᾽ ἐχθρὸς ἦ, τοσόνδ᾽ εἶναι φίλος.

Teucer’s response reflects this:

τούτῳ γὰρ ὢν ἔχθιστος Ἀργείων ἀνὴρ
μόνος παρέστης χερσίν, οὐδ᾽ ἔτλης παρὼν
θανόντι τῷδε ζῶν ἐφυβρίσαι μέγα,

Loosely: "You of all the Argives were the most hostile to this man [i.e., Ajax, not Teucer, who is speaking], yet you alone stood by him with physical support, and when he was dead and you stood by him alive, you did not stoop to dishonor him . . . "

They’re talking about Odysseus’ relationship to Ajax, not to Teucer himself. The whole play turns on the previous hostility between Ajax and Odysseus, and Odysseus’ magnanimous change of heart after Ajax’s death; and Teucer’s role is secondary to this–as Ajax’ half-brother, his role is to represent Ajax after the latter’s death. So I think that LSJ is correct, and Brill (along with Jebb) is wrong.

It’s possible that 1376 could be read to mean that Odysseus is now friendly to both Ajax and Teucer, but not to Teucer alone–the emphasis is clearly on Odysseus’ transformed relationship, formerly hostile, now friendly, to Ajax.

ἔχθιστος in 1383 picks up ἐχθρὸς in 1377.

Incidentally, Lloyd-Jones’ Loeb reflects my reading: “And now for the future I proclaim to Teucer that I am as much a friend as I was then an enemy.” This can only refer to Odysseus’ relationship to Ajax, so Τεύκρῳ must go with ἀγγέλλομαι, not φίλος.

Edit: This was written independently of mwh below.

14

Νο. LSJ’s “I announce myself to him as a friend” has it right. The full quote is actually καὶ νῦν γε Τεύκρῳ τἀπὸ τοῦδε ἀγγέλλομαι, | ὅσον τότ’ ἐχθρὸς ἦ, τόσονδ’ εἶναι φίλος, which Lloyd-Jones translates “And now for the future I proclaim to Teucer that I am as much a friend as I was then an enemy.” It is an announcement made to Teucer.
(Jebb—or should that be “Jebb!” :wink: ?—did not take the dative as possessive either, btw. His note is better than his translation.)

As so often the Brill entry deleteriously and ignorantly tinkers with the LSJ entry which wholly underlies it.

EDIT. This written independently of Hylander above.

15

Thanks mwh and hylander. I see the force of your argument and it shows the dangers of commenting on plays I have not looked at recently.

I am not sure that I see that Jebb’s note is inconsistent with his translation but I need to think about it further. I am more convinced by the difficulty of what Teucer says after Odysseus. However I am troubled by how Odysseus can be a friend of the now dead Ajax. Perhaps I am being too literal here.

I have just found my loeb and have discovered a note I have written but alas I cant read much of what I have written. So I must have thought about this at some stage. Eheu fugaces Postume Postume.

16

However I am troubled by how Odysseus can be a friend of the now dead Ajax. Perhaps I am being too literal here.

Don’t be mislead by the English word “friend”, which isn’t necessarily exactly the same as the Greek word φιλοσ. Maybe the idea that Ajax is now dear to Odysseus would better capture the changed relationship that making Odysseus a “friend” of Ajax. Or perhaps Odysseus is now “kindly disposed” towards Ajax.

17

As for the αραιος entry, kindly copied by jeidsath above, Brill takes LSJ’s entry (as usual) and dumbs it down, cutting out the data that make it interesting and informative. Those who like dumbed-down dictionaries will prefer it.

18

How about we compare with an entry where the LSJ falls down? Chadwick’s Lexicographica Graeca has a long article about the LSJ’s treatment of ζῆλος.

LSJ’s treatment of this word is more than usually confusing. The article is arranged thus:

I > > jealousy; eager rivalry, emulation. > > 2 > c. gen. pers. > zeal for, emulation of; > absol. > passion. > > 3 > c. gen. rei, > rivalry, emulous desire for; > pl. > ambitions. > > 4 > > fervour, zeal. > > 5 > personified. > II > > pride, honour, glory. > > III > > spirit; > pl. > tastes, interests. > > 2 > > style.

Part of the difficulty with this word is that it refers to both welcome and unwelcome emotions, which suggests that its original meaning may have been any outburst of emotion, though in fact this sense only appears in later Greek. If the examples in > II > are defined as > the state of being admired, success, > it becomes easier to see how it arose. But > III > is a dubious collection of examples, which will need discussion below.

And he continues his discussion for several pages. I’ve uploaded them to an album here: http://imgur.com/a/2EGfR

LSJ ζῆλος + supplement:

Brill ζῆλος:

19

I fear that the last remark by mwh is a little abrasive. Certainly the Brill entry for ἀραῖος is shorter but I dont think any essential information is missing. The intention is clearly to produce a more streamlined and easier to use dictionary. I think that the benefits are seen more clearly in the longer entries which are, I think, better structured. In the case of ἀραῖος I certainly think that replacing the LSJ “bringing mischief upon” by “that curses, deathly” is an improvement. This exemplifies what I feel is the (wrong) colouration that LSJ often gives. “Mischief” has I think rather altered in meaning over the last 70 years or so. It certainly has a different feel to how it was used in the 19th century.

Whilst I think that there is a case for updating language I would not pour scorn on anyone who chooses to stick with LSJ.

20

As a further example of the outdated language of LSJ I draw your attention to the following entries which arose in my reading this evening of Alcestis.

LSJ:

μον-άμπυξ , υ^κος, ὁ, ἡ, of horses,
A. [select] having one frontlet, μονάμπυκες πῶλοι horses that run single, race-horses, opp. chariots, E. Alc.428; μονάμπυκες alone, Id.Supp.586,680; of a bull, having no yoke-fellow, μονάμπυκος （-ον codd.) “ψήχων δέρην” Id.Hel.1567.

Brill:

I seem to have a problem getting the relevant Brill entry uploaded here. Perhaps someone with better computer skills might help?

Suffice it to say that Brill has “that which has a single bridle” and for the actual Alcestis line “mounted colts”. Which is a bit more helpful than “frontlet”.