LIDDELL-AND-SCOTT.
THE above, be it understood, is one word, notwithstanding that "our rude forefathers" may have deemed it three. Whether it is a proper name, or, rather, a common term, in view of the number of individuals in which the essential form is embodied by the printer, may be left to the logicians to decide. But one thing is certain,—namely, that it possesses connotation. And one of the attributes which it rightly calls up to the mind is—" one of the greatest achievements of English scholarship during the nineteenth century." One does not habitually think of it as a Joe Miller, and yet strange tales are told of the first edition : how the ordinary explanation of crincoOcivnis was dismissed as a mere "fig-ment," and how the word, or at least the letters, " c-o-n-d-o-g," got whimsically printed instead of "c-o-n-c-u-r." This sounds like sheer " hagga.dah." Neither should we care to stake our credit on the truth of the story which used to be told, that when you went to Liddell to point out anything amiss in tho lexicon, he would sigh and say, " Ah, poor Scott!" and that when you went to Scott the result was the same, except that what he used to say was, " Ah, poor Liddell ! "
When these two men started on their labours we were admittedly far behind the Germans in Greek lexicography. Now we have a Greek lexicon which is second to none in the world for practical efficiency. Single-handed—if such an expression may be used in the case of dual authorship—they set themselves to carry out the conception which Passow did not live to realise, except in part, and to produce that ideal lexicon which had been vaticinated in the Quarterly Review, first by Bishop Blomfield, and afterwards by Fishlake of Wadham, the translator of Buttmann's Lexilogus. They do not seem to have invited co-operation, but were content to be architects and hodmen in one. The only Englishman who is mentioned by name as having had a hand in the work is George Marshall, M.A., student of Christ Church, and his service was merely to verify the references. In the seventh edition acknowledgments of help are made to the American Professors Drisler, Goodwin, and Gildersleeve. The obligation expressed to Veitch for his inestimable "Greek Verbs" is not for personal assistance.
Liddell-and-Scott, like the sun, is so constant a benefactor that we are inclined to forget what we owe to it. Yet we are reminded of our debt by an eclipse. For instance, among a number of minute criticisms which were directed by Fishlake against the lexicon on its first appearance one was to the effect that the word cripupor was used by Aristophanes, whereas Liddell-and-Scott's first reference for it was to Dioscorides. Nowadays any one on being told that a word was in Aristophanes would forthwith look it up in his Liddell- and-Scott in the confident expectation of finding the passage. But, if the critic was right, Liddell-and-Scott is still defective on this particular point, probably because he omitted to give his reference.
In an age like the present of co-operative enterprise in literature individualist dictionary-making ought to be out of date. A dictionary is the common concern of the Republic of Letters, and, as all are to benefit by it, all ought to the extent of their powers to contribute to it. Every scholar, therefore, will be interested to learn that a new edition of Liddell-and-Scott is being prepared under the competent editorship of Mr. Arthur Sidgwick.
One might think that a dictionary of a dead language is a work which admits of being accomplished once for all. But, strictly speaking, Greek is not a dead language. It is still being spoken, and is therefore susceptible of growth. That,
however, is beside the point in the present connexion. But, if we say that the old language is dead, we must admit that it is a revenant, and that finality is impossible until the graves of Egypt have completely yielded up their treasures. How strange the different fate which has befallen the two classical languages of Europe! Latin is undoubtedly dead, but is represented among us by some half-dozen vigorous daughters; Greek lives always, but, after having given birth to the Word of God, she bestows no offspring on the world.
There is another way in which finality is not yet attainable. Philology is a moving science, and etymologies which satisfied one generation of philologists do not satisfy another. In the second edition of Liddell-and-Scott we were expressly told that the derivations offered were intended to stimulate rather than to satisfy curiosity. The authority then relied upon was Pott; in the later editions it was Carting. In a new edition the philological department ought to be thoroughly revised by some scholar who is alive to the most recent lights.
Admirable as Liddell-and-Scott is, it does not come up to the ideal of its authors, which was to write a full biography of every word. They admit that their strength was chiefly thrown on the Attic writers. Those they read themselves ; but for post-classical authors they trusted chiefly to indices. These are, of course, valuable, like the rivulets that go to swell the great river. But even where a good index exists there is always something more to be gleaned for the purposes of a dictionary from a continuous perusal of an author. In the ideal lexicon every author included ought to be read expressly for the purpose by some competent scholar. There are plenty of men of leisure and ability both in the United Kingdom and in America who would gladly volunteer for this purpose, if they were certain that their work would not be thrown away. This they might be, if the exact authors and texts required were settled by authority.
But now the question arises : How far is the new work to be carried down ? In Liddell-and-Scott, as we have it, there is no limit fixed. While the lexicon of Sophocles covers the definite period B.C. 146-1100 A.D., Liddell-and-Scott ranges from Homer to the fifteenth century, the latest author mentioned being Theodore Gaza, whose floruit is put at 1430; while there are no less than thirty authors included who are later than 1000 A.D. There is evidently room here for retrenchment, and, if the work is to be done efficiently, its compass must be contracted. As Liddell-and-Scott now stands you can carry the whole Greek language under one arm, or even use it as a missile to hurl at the head of an intruder. Perhaps it may be thought that these are uses of the thing per accidens. So let us turn to other considerations.
A lexicon is not written primarily for schoolboys, though it. may afterwards be abridged for their use ; neither can it be expected to satisfy all the requirements of the most advanced scholars. Bat students at the University ought certainly to find all their wants supplied. Now Liddell-and-Scott fails them in two points, of which one is much more important than the other. We will take the point of less importance first. The student often craves information about Greek proper names. But Liddell-and-Scott contains only a very few proper names. The authors excuse themselves by the metaphor of a waving line ; but the line does not merely wave, it wobbles. The few names that there are had better be omitted; they only tempt one to look for others. We now come to the more capital defect. Liddell-and-Scott, as every- body knows, was originally based on Passow. Passow in his turn based his work upon that of Schneider. Now Schneider's lexicon was specially intended for the study of "profane" authors. The tinge of profanity still clings to Liddell-and- Scott, though some laudable efforts have been made to remove it. Any word, for instance, which occurs for the first time or in any peculiar sense in the Septuagint is at least intended to be noted. This is far, however, from being actually the case. But since the inception of Liddell-and-Scott, which had already cost years of labour when the first edition appeared in 1843, flourishing schools of theology have sprung up both at Oxford and Cambridge, and a wide interest in the subject has been awakened among the public generally. There is, in short, a clear call for a dictionary of ecclesiastical Greek. Theological students are expected to study the history of the Christian Church down to the year 461 A.D., and to study it, so far as maybe, with reference to the original authors. The needs of such students have as much right to be considered as those of candidates for the Honour Classical Schools. But for this purpose Liddell-and-Scott is almost useless. Yet if this work is to be done as it ought to be, the lexicon will become unwieldy. Thus we seem to be between the devil of ponderosity and the deep sea of imperfection. What is the way of escape ? The present writer would like to be allowed respectfully to lay before the delegates of the Clarendon Press the following three suggestions :- (1) That the lexicon should not be carried beyond the year
500 A.D., the date of Simplieins's Commentary on Epictetus, which may be considered to be the dying utterance of paganism, almost converted on its death-bed.
(2) That there should be published separately an Index of Greek Proper Names, somewhat on the model of the " Worter- buoh der griechischen Eigennamen " by Pape-Benseler.
(3) That there should also be published separately a Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Greek, beginning from the Septuagint, and including Aristeas, the fragments of Aristo- bulus and others, Philo, the New Testatnent, the Apostolic Fathers, and ecclesiastical writers generally down to whatever period may be thought advisable.
Such a work as the last, we feel sure, besides being a service to scholarship, would also be a good business venture.
Previous page
