Brill's Dictionary

Greek Learning Greek
21

As Chadwick’s multitudinous (if often carping) criticisms of LSJ effectively suggest, LSJ could be organized on lexicographically different lines. Years ago there was a article by Michael Silk (I forget where) which made a more penetrating critique of LSJ’s lexicographical principles and practice. A radically differently organized dictionary would have been welcome. But of course it would be a mammoth undertaking, and it’s understandable that the new dictionary so very slavishly follows LSJ.

seneca2008, You make perfectly valid points. LSJ’s αραιος entry could be slimmed down without much harm. LSJ does tend to be a bit heavy on tragedy. And of course, as we’ve said before, LSJ’s language is sometimes oldfashioned. Updating it is not without its dangers, though. To translate μονάμπυκες πῶλοι as “mounted colts” is disgraceful, when μοναμπυκες means nothing like “mounted.” I can’t agree it’s “more helpful” if it bears no relation to the Greek. I’m sorry, but the more I see of this dictionary the less I like it.

22

I looked for this and found an article which is probably the correct one, called LSJ and the Problem of Poetic Archaism: From Meanings to Iconyms (CQ vol. 33 [1983], 303—330). I haven’t read it yet, but see that Silk ends his text saying, »I look forward to the tenth edition.»

23

To translate μονάμπυκες πῶλοι as “mounted colts” is disgraceful, when μοναμπυκες means nothing like “mounted.”

It is interesting that you characterise this entry as “disgraceful” as if some sense of purity of meaning has been traduced but I think it reveals a very particular approach to the function of dictionaries. Mapping meaning between languages and cultures is inevitable an inexact process. This is especially true when dealing with poetry.

I quite like “mounted” as a suggestion and certainly in the context of E.Alc.428 it catches the contrast between the horses that are part of a chariot team and those that are ridden (ie “mounted”). I think you go too far when you say “μοναμπυκες means nothing like “mounted” ". Its a distinction which is suggested in LSJ “horses that run single, race-horses, opp. chariots”. My main objection to LSJ is that frontlet with which the definition begins is an obsolete word which does not immediately help with elucidating the meaning of the passage. I don’t find it a major fault and I only posted it because I happened to come across it in my ordinary reading.

24

I’m not sure we need to bring the question of the meaning’s purity into it; it looks more like the meaning itself has been traduced there.

25

Given that LSJ is available for free with Diogenes http://www.aoidoi.org/diogenes/ isn’t the big advantage in getting a hard copy of Brill is that it gives you a take on the Greek that isn’t accessible otherwise?

26

Yes, I would gladly trade either one of my hard copy LSJs (1968, 1996) for a second opinion. If you can read Spanish there are contempoary lexical resources for Classical Greek. I don’t have the titles.

27

Timothée, Yes that will be it, thanks for finding it. It’s years since I read it and I don’t really remember what it said, but I do remember thinking it was good, and it was probably formative in my own thinking.

seneca2008, And I thought I was being placatory!
I think I understand what you’re getting at. You’re defending “mounted” for μοναμπυκες as representing what the word amounts to in this particular context. Then this will be an unsignalled “sensu translato” interpretation, a reflex of the ancient lexicographical distinction between literal and metaphorical meaning (κυρίως vs. μεταφορικῶς, καταχρηστικῶς). I disagree with this interpretation (for the horses will not be mounted if they are to have their hair cut), but never mind that. My more fundamental objection is that it destroys the image; in fact it replaces one image (πωλοι with single αμπυκες) with another very different one (men riding on colts).

What the hearer or reader of the Alcestis encounters here is “single-bridled colts.” [Not exactly, since an αμπυξ is not a bridle and πωλοι could as well be female as male, and μοναμπυκας is a highflown word, but let’s accept the approximation.] Several mental steps are involved in getting from “single-bridled” to “mounted.” These are steps for the reader to take (or not), not a dictionary. For a dictionary to do this kind of decoding (even if it got it right) is false to the author, and cheats the reader. To take a less extreme example, a dictionary could render Πηλειδης as “Achilles” (and that too could be called “helpful”), but think how much it would erase in doing so.

I won’t add that “mounted colts” sounds rather like equine buggery to me.

daivid, To judge from my limited sampling, I’d say that Brill rarely gives a take on the Greek different from LSJ, and even more rarely a better one. Which is not surprising, given the wealth of unmatched accumulated expertise that went into LSJ’s making.

Sterling, The main Spanish resource is Adrados’ Diccionario Griego-Español. Begun in the early sixties, it reached ἀλλά in 1980. Many such ambitious projects never get beyond alpha, but this one I understand is now into epsilon. Whether it will get any further I don’t know. Nor do I know how often it gives “a second opinion.” Not often, I hope.
I am confident there’ll never be an ancient Greek dictionary better than LSJ. Which is a bit of a pity, because in theory it could be made even better than it is.

28

Questions for Joel and anyone else who owns both editions: How do the font sizes compare? Does the binding of Brill look like it might hold up better than the Oxford edition of LSJ, which is notorious for falling apart quickly? Anything notable about the Brill paper? Joel, can you post screen shots of Brill which give us a sense of its overall size, cover, ability to lay flat etc?

Sure, this makes sense to me.

29

I have both. LSJ is much easier on my 70-year-old eyes.

30

Does the binding of Brill look like it might hold up better than the Oxford edition of LSJ, which is notorious for falling apart quickly?

I’ll answer Markos’ other questions once I get home, but this I can answer now: Brill’s binding is far inferior to the LSJ binding. It began falling apart the first day I received it.

31

My foremost impression of Brill is that it’s not as interesting to look words up in as the LSJ. But I disagree with mwh’s statement here!

I think that the next generation of the LSJ is going to be all digital, and take more of a wikipedia type approach. There will be considerably more scope for it to be an “all things to all people” dictionary, including both scholarship for scholars and basic information for learners.

You won’t be able to follow wikipedia’s anonymous contribution model, I don’t think. Instead there will have to be scope for individual research, credit for scholarship, and requirements for contributors. I think it might even be possible to fund the project through institutional subscriptions.

32

You’ll be interested—as am I—in the Cambridge Greek Lexicon project, which I meant to refer to in an earlier post.

33

Several mental steps are involved in getting from “single-bridled” to “mounted.” These are steps for the reader to take (or not), not a dictionary. For a dictionary to do this kind of decoding (even if it got it right) is false to the author, and cheats the reader.

The full entry is “that which has a single bridle, racehorse or saddlehorse”. Then comes the suggestion “mounted colts” for Alcestis. Whatever the merits of this as a translation it is to my mind more helpful than the LSJ “having one frontlet, μονάμπυκες πῶλοι horses that run single, race-horses, opp. chariots,”. It seems to me that mounted colts is simply a more economical way of saying “horses that run single”, not in itself a very felicitous expression. I do, however, like the contrast with chariots.

I have now consulted Parker’s commentary. Parker argues that μονάμπυξ means “a single horse with a brow-band, not, as one might expect with such a compound, a horse with one brow-band, as distinct from a horse with more than one. Compare μονόστολός at 407 above, “going on a mission alone” not “going on just one mission”. Similarly at A.Supp.374 μονόσκηπτρος means “alone with the sceptre” or “autocratic”.”

If one follows this line of thought “mounted colts” seems a more accurate translation in that it emphasises the distinction between a team of horses in a chariot and those that have to be controlled by a seated rider (as is the normal case with horses whether raced or simply ridden). Having now the benefit of Parker I prefer her “single, brow-banded steeds” but it is rather longer than the Brill suggestion.

You also objected as an aside to the notion that the horses would be ridden. You said “(for the horses will not be mounted if they are to have their hair cut),”. I dont know where you get that idea from. You have to assume some kind of verb in “τέθριππά θ᾽ οἳ ζεύγνυσθε καὶ μονάμπυκας |πώλους, σιδήρῳ τέμνετ᾽ αὐχένων φόβην” as clearly “ζεύγνυσθε” does not seem appropriate word for a single riding-horse (as Parker observes). Parker suggests “ride”. Whether the horses are actually being ridden or yoked at the time of the hair cutting seems irrelevant. Admetus’ instruction is addressed to those who do those activities (yoking or riding) to do the cutting. Mounted colts means no more than colts that are (in general) mounted ie ridden.

So I dont see that Brill has “cheated the reader”. It has provoked us to think more deeply about this passage. By ditching the idea of “single bridle” in favour of “single horse” it brings the definition of this word more into line with current scholarship.

34

I looked up the relevant terms (see below), I think that Brill actually does better in context here.

Headstall:

Bridle:

Late classical bridle:

Brill ἄμπυξ:

ἄμπυξ > -υκος, ὁ [ἀνά, πύξ?; ἀμφί, πύξ?] > band> , > for the forehead> , > diadem> , > to fasten a woman’s hair > IL. 22.469 AESCHL. > Suppl> . 431 EUR. > Hec> . 465 > etc> . || > frontal, bridle> , > for a horse > QS 4.111 || > rim> . > of a wheel > SOPH. Ph. 678 • > fem> . ἄμπυξ, ἡ SOPH. l.c. EUR. l.c.

LSJ ἄμπυξ:

ἄμπυξ> , ῠκος, ὁ (ἡ S., E., v. infr.):–> woman’s diadem, frontlet> , Il.22.469, A.> Supp> .431 (lyr., with play on 1.2), E > Hec> .465, Theoc. I.33. 2. > horse’s headband > (Thess. acc. to Sch.Pi.O.5.15), Q.S. 4.511. II. > rim of wheel> , S.Ph.680 (lyr).

The LSJ supplement:

ἄμπυξ > 2, for '> headband> ’ read '> headstall> ’ at end add ‘Myc. > a-pu-ke > (pl.), sense II; cf. > a-pu-ko-wo-ko > = *ἀμπυκϝοργός, fem. occupational term’

And here are the various μοναμπύξ entries from Brill and LSJ:

Brill:

LSJ:

35

Thank you Joel for all the interesting additional information. When I searched on line for frontlet I got pictures of scantily clad Indian (?) ladies with what I had always thought to be diadems.

I think you should return your Brill dictionary as being defective. I have had mine several months and it is still in good order. I have no compunction in complaining about poorly made books. More than a year after I had bought my OLD I found a page where I could not read an entry because it had been smudged in the printing process. It was replaced with no question and an apology. I was able to give away the defective but still usable original copy.

36

I’m not having problems with my copies of LSJ falling apart. I don’t carry them in a backpack. I have a friend who used an early version of LS (dated sometime after the civil war) to get through greek at Dallas Seminary 45 years ago. It was hard to use, it kept shedding particles on you when you handled it. It now belongs to a young theology student who was gifted an entire language reference library (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) when my friend recently relocated to his home state.

Perhaps the recent printings have gone downhill. I wouldn’t know.

37

τέθριππά θ᾽ οἳ ζεύγνυσθε καὶ μονάμπυκας
πώλους, σιδήρῳ τέμνετ᾽ αὐχένων φόβην.
(as a token of mourning for the premature death of his wife)

seneca2008, Thanks for the thoughtful comeback. Yes the way I’d put it is that μονάμπυκας πώλους is a typical composite form of poetic expression. (I tend to think of them as portmanteau expressions, but that’s inexact.) If you stop to analyze it you can say that the μονο- idea is transferred from the πωλοι to their αμπυκες. But such forms of expression are kind of fuzzy, and highflown; and the –αμπυκας component here is weak, as in other instances of this adjective and cognates. (Αs often in such compounds it’s the first element that bears the main weight—likewise with μονοστολῳ in 407.) μελαμπέπλῳ στολῇ in the previous line is a comparable composite. Only in elevated dialogue are such locutions are at home; they’re right on the borderline with lyric (again, cf. μονοστολω).

It’s basically similar with ζευγνυσθε. The verb properly applies only to τεθριππα, the nearer noun, not to μοναμπυκας πωλους, but in this elevated poetic context it can carry over without undue strain. (We could call such modes of expression zeugmatic!) Just as with μοναμπυκας πωλους it’s not actually the αμπυκες that are single, so with τέθριππά θ᾽ οἳ ζεύγνυσθε καὶ μονάμπυκας πώλους it’s not actually yoking that’s done to the πωλοι. We have to take in each lexical complex as a complex, without breaking them down too rigorously. Of course this creates problems for dictionary makers, and for dictionary users.

Or that’s how I see it.

“it kept shedding particles on you when you handled it.” :smiley: :smiley:

38

it kept shedding particles on you when you handled it.

I have the same problem with Denniston.

39

I really don’t want to go on criticizing the Brill dictionary, which I’m sure has its merits, but when I took a look at the μοναμπυκ- entries in the section imaged by Joel above, my eye caught the preceding entry μονάκανθος, which Brill (surely not Montanari?) derives from μονάς (sic) + ἄκανθος. Now that is disgraceful.

40

Brill might be wrong – I can’t judge – but I don’t think it’s a typo. The entry on μονάς seems to take some later Greek into account.

And most words are marked as derived from μόνος, not μονάς, but the following is an exception: