Ok, so we have:
- Homer: R. J. Cunlife - A Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect
- Pindar: William J. Slater - Lexicon to Pindar
- Bacchylides: Douglas L. Gerber - Lexicon in Bacchylidem
- Herodotus: J. Enoch Powell - A Lexicon to Herodotus
…and they are so useful when reading and translating and researching word occurrences in these authors! Do you know other great lexica specialized in one author?
Thanks!
Amazing, Gonzalo! I didn’t know these works. Thank you!
If only there was a lexicon for Aristotle’s works.
Behold!
What a wonderful topic! I’m so thankful to all the contributors! If anybody has more resources to mention here, I would also be very thankful.
Here is what I wish to add:
Digital version of A Platonic lexicon https://www.lexeis.org/plato/#/
and
SLEEMAN, J. H. and POLLET, Gilbert, 1980. Lexicon plotinianum. Leiden, Holland : Leuven, Belgium: E. J. Brill ; Leuven University Press.
For Homer, in addition to Cunliffe there’s Autenrieth’s Homeric Dictionary; not to mention Apollonios Sophistes’ Lexicon Homericum, compiled in antiquity, both less and more than a Homeric lexicon.
For Hesiod there’s Hofinger.
For Euripides there’s Collard.
But I’m not sure we really need specialized lexica, except for Homer and possibly Aristotle (and ok Plotinus!), when we have such good dictionaries (LSJ, OLD, etc.).
Thank you very much for your additions! I can see what you mean, especially now when there is TLG (and its online free version), which enables you to search the word in the context and restrict it to the author in whom you are interested. I also tend to agree that it’s more relevant for philosophical corpora. I was happy to find this thread mostly because of Aristotle, but I’m curious about all the rest as well! Maybe I’m just crazy about dictionaries 
Although general dictionaries like LSJ and OLD are indispensable, specialized lexica serve an equally important purpose, especially when studying texts rooted in specific traditions or linguistic registers. They offer a detailed view of an author’s vocabulary and often reveal nuances that broader dictionaries might miss. For researchers, as well as for those who wish to approach an author’s work in the original language without relying too heavily on translations, these tools prove invaluable. They help track how a word or concept is used within an author’s work, and offer deeper insights into its meaning and significance in context.
That’s all very true. But there’s not much point in studying Bacchylides, say, to the exclusion of Pindar and Simonides, and there’s always the danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. Sometimes people dive into a specialization before surveying the territory, the equivalent of wearing blinkers.
Arrian:
A. Weise: Wörterbuch zu Arrians Anabasis (1854, reprinted by Olms 1971)
Xenophon:
Vollbrecht: Wörterbuch zu Xenophons Anabasis (1886)
Thiemann: Wörterbuch zu Xenophons Hellenika (1898)
Crusius: Vollständiges Wörterbuch zu Xenophons Kyropädie (1844)
Vollbrecht available here: https://archive.org/details/wrterbuchzuxenop00voll/mode/2up
Vergil:
Henry Simmons Frieze A Vergilian dictionary embracing all the words found in the Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid of Vergil, with numerous references to the text verifying and illustrating the definitions. 1882. New York, D. Appleton and company. (link)
Your cautionary advice is certainly valid, and I fully agree that it’s important to have a broader perspective. That said, I must admit that I personally love Bacchylides’ dithyrambs—so original and delightful! Gerber’s Lexicon has been especially helpful for me in navigating them. For this reason, I think we should avoid being too quick to judge anyone who chooses to focus on a specific author with the aid of a tailored lexicon, especially one that provides unique definitions and comparisons of occurrences. Needless to say, this approach can be particularly valuable for researchers, of course.