Jump to content

A Latin Dictionary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CitationCleanerBot (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 9 November 2016 (clean up, url redundant with jstor, and/or remove accessdate if no url using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A Latin Dictionary Founded on Andrews' Edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary
AuthorCharlton T. Lewis and Charles Short
Original titleHarpers' Latin Dictionary: A New Latin Dictionary Founded on the Translation of Freund's Latin-German Lexicon edited by E.A. Andrews
LanguageEnglish
Published1879
Publication placeUnited States
Media typePrint (hardcover)
Pages2019
ISBN978-0-19-864201-5
OCLC1063568
TextA Latin Dictionary Founded on Andrews' Edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary at Wikisource

A Latin Dictionary (or Harpers' Latin Dictionary, often referred to as Lewis and Short or L&S) is a popular English-language lexicographical work of the Latin language, published by Harper and Brothers of New York in 1879 and printed simultaneously in the United Kingdom by Oxford University Press.

History

The work is usually referred to as Lewis and Short after the names of its editors, Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. It was derived from the 1850 English translation by Ethan Allen Andrews of an earlier Latin-German dictionary, Wörterbuch der Lateinischen Sprache, by the German philologist Wilhelm Freund, in turn based on I.J.G. Scheller’s Latin–German dictionary of 1783. The Andrews translation was partially revised by Freund himself, then by Henry Drisler, and was finally edited by Short and Lewis.[1]

The division of labour between the two editors was remarkably unequal. Short, a very thorough but slow worker, produced material for the letters A through C, but B and C were lost by Harpers, meaning that his work now only appears in the letter A (216 pages), while Lewis was solely responsible for the entries beginning with the letters B through Z (1803 pages), who worked on his spare time from his law practice.[2] In 1890 Lewis published a heavily abridged version the dictionary, entitled An Elementary Latin Dictionary, for the use of students. Sometimes called the Elementary Lewis, it is still in print today.

The adoption of the book by Oxford University Press was the result of the failure of its own project to create a new Latin-English dictionary in 1875. Henry Nettleship and John Mayor had been commissioned to produce a new Latin dictionary based on a fresh reading of the sources, but after Mayor withdrew from the project, Nettleship was unable to complete it on his own; he eventually published his research as notes on Lewis and Short.[3] While the Press had earlier published John Riddle’s 1835 translation of Scheller’s Latin–German dictionary, this was a much more expensive book. The Press thus adopted Harpers' Latin Dictionary as a stopgap measure, paying Harper and Brothers 10 per cent royalties.[4] Harper and Brothers sold its rights to the American Book Company in 1899, shortly before its bankruptcy.[5]

From the time of its publication, many scholars have criticized the dictionary for its errors and inconsistencies.[6] Because of various circumstances, however, no replacement was attempted until 1933, with the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which was completed in 1983.

The dictionary's full text is available on-line from the Perseus Project. Lewis and Short is also available for offline consultation, by means of various applications.

Comparison with other dictionaries

Among classicists, Lewis and Short has been largely superseded by the Oxford Latin Dictionary, called the OLD for short. Lewis and Short incorporated material from existing Latin dictionaries; the OLD, by contrast, started from scratch, following procedures similar to those of the well-regarded Oxford English Dictionary. Thanks to the increased availability of modern editions, the OLD editors had access to a larger variety of classical works.[7] Although classicists still consult Lewis and Short, they tend to prefer the OLD.

On the other hand, Lewis and Short remains a standard reference work for medievalists, renaissance specialists, and early modernists, as the dictionary covers Late and Medieval Latin, if somewhat inconsistently. The OLD, when used on its own, rarely meets their needs, since it was decided early in the OLD's planning that the work would not encompass works written later than AD 200. A few exceptions were made for especially important texts from the late classical period, such as Augustine's De Civitate Dei, but for periods later than that the OLD is considerably less useful. The Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources supplements the OLD for medieval usage of Latin words.

In cases where Lewis and Short do not answer a medieval usage question, J. F. Niermeyer's Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus often supplies an answer. The Lexicon Minus was completed in 1976 by C. van de Kieft after Niermeyer's death, and has since become a standard reference work.[8] More recent editions of the Lexicon Minus have corrections and expansions; also, in later editions all words are defined in English, French and German, making it of greater international importance than Lewis and Short. The Glossarium ad scriptores media et infirmae latinitatis completed in 1678 by Charles du Fresne (commonly referred to as Du Cange after the author's title, the Sieur du Cange) is now less frequently used, as Niermeyer's Lexicon Minus incorporates much of its information.

On occasion people confuse Lewis and Short (or L&S) with Liddell and Scott, its Greek counterpart, entitled A Greek–English Lexicon. The 1945 and later editions of Liddell and Scott are commonly referred to by the abbreviation LSJ after the names of its editors Liddell, Scott and the editor of the 1945 revision, Jones.

See also

References

  1. ^ See the advertisement of the book itself, available on WikiSource.
  2. ^ Sypher, Francis Jacques (October 1972). "A History of Harpers' Latin Dictionary". Harvard Library Bulletin. 20 (4): 349–66.
  3. ^ Stray, Christopher (2011). "Lex Wrecks: A Tale of Two Latin Dictionaries". Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America. 32: 66–81. ISSN 2160-5076. Retrieved 2013-11-29. Nettleship, Henry (1889). Contributions to Latin lexicography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Retrieved 2013-10-29.
  4. ^ Stray, Christopher (2012). "The Oxford Latin Dictionary: A Historical Introduction". Oxford Latin dictionary (PDF) (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. xi–xvii. ISBN 9780199580316. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Louis, W. Roger (2013). History of Oxford University Press: Volume III: 1896 to 1970. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 428. ISBN 9780199568406.
  6. ^ Dilke, O.A.W. (October 1959). "Final -e in Lewis and Short". Greece & Rome. 6 (2): 212–213. doi:10.1017/s0017383500013863. ISSN 0017-3835. JSTOR 641434. Dunbabin, R.L. (December 1934). "Notes on Lewis and Short". The Classical Review. 48 (6): 212–214. doi:10.1017/s0009840x00066154. ISSN 0009-840X. JSTOR 701476. Dunbabin, R.L. (February 1935). "Notes on Lewis and Short (Continued)". The Classical Review. 49 (1): 9–12. doi:10.1017/s0009840x00066646. ISSN 0009-840X. JSTOR 697220. Fletcher, G.B.A. (November 1936). "More Notes on Lewis and Short". The Classical Review. 50 (5): 165–166. doi:10.1017/s0009840x00077210. ISSN 0009-840X. JSTOR 705935. Inge, W.R. (February 1894). "Annotations in Lewis and Short's Lexicon". The Classical Review. 8 (1/2): 25–27. doi:10.1017/s0009840x00187207. ISSN 0009-840X. JSTOR 693788. Ingram, John K. (1893). "Etymological Notes on Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary". Hermathena. 8 (19): 326–344. ISSN 0018-0750. JSTOR 23036732. Kirkland, J.H. (1893). "Some Errors in Harpers' Latin Dictionary". The American Journal of Philology. 14 (3): 362–364. doi:10.2307/288076. ISSN 0002-9475. JSTOR 288076. Knapp, Charles (1893). "Corrections and Additions to Lewis and Short in Connection with Aulus Gellius". The American Journal of Philology. 14 (2): 216–225. doi:10.2307/288106. ISSN 0002-9475. JSTOR 288106. Laidlaw, W.A. (November 1946). "Lewis and Short: Some Corrigenda and Addenda". Hermathena (68): 32–45. ISSN 0018-0750. JSTOR 23037562. Leeper, Alexander (1899). "Notes on Lewis and Short's Latin-English Lexicon". The American Journal of Philology. 20 (2): 169–185. doi:10.2307/287803. ISSN 0002-9475. JSTOR 287803. Maguinness, W.S. (February 1936). "Notes on Lewis and Short". The Classical Review. 50 (1): 9–10. doi:10.1017/s0009840x00075375. ISSN 0009-840X. JSTOR 705705. Moore, Frank G. (1894). "Corrections and Additions to Lewis and Short". The American Journal of Philology. 15 (3): 348–355. doi:10.2307/287815. ISSN 0002-9475. JSTOR 287815.
  7. ^ Mueller, Janel M. (1985-11-01). "Review of Oxford Latin Dictionary by P. G. W. Glare". Modern Philology. 83 (2): 223–25. doi:10.1086/391471. ISSN 0026-8232. JSTOR 437022.
  8. ^ Brooke, C. N. L. (July 1978). "Review of Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus by J.F. Niermeyer; C. van de Kieft". The English Historical Review. 93 (368): 655–656. doi:10.1093/ehr/XCIII.CCCLXVIII.655. ISSN 0013-8266. Retrieved 2013-10-19.
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Latin_Dictionary&oldid=748707067"