PREFACEThis work may claim some indulgence as the first English attempt of the kind, all the Homeric Lexicons hitherto in use in this country having been of foreign, for the most part of German, origin. It is not based on any previous Lexicon, but is the result of an independent, and, I hope, a thorough survey of the language of the two epics. I have set myself to consider together all the occurrences of all the words, and thence to deduce and classify the senses to the best of my ability, keeping as far as possible a mind open and free from preconception. It may be useful to state here the general lines and scope of the work:-- (1) The text used is that in the Oxford Series of Classical Texts, in which the Iliad is edited by D. B. Monro and Mr. T. H. Allen, and the Odyssey by Mr. Allen. In compiling I used the first edition of the texts, that current at the time when the compilation was begun; but in reading the proofs I have used the editions current at the time when the printing was begun, i.e. the third of the Iliad and the second of the Odyssey. In these a number of small changes have been made. The principal variants occurring in other texts have been noted, in order that the Lexicon may be used with these texts; but the testimony of the manuscripts is remarkably uniform, and the number of important variants is not great. (2) Proper and place names, adjectives thereform, and patronymics have not as a rule been treated. Full Indices Nominum are appended to the text used. (3) The brief etymological notes enclosed in square brackets are for the most part directed to exhibiting the interconnexion of the words and to stating cognates, chiefly in Latin and English. In the cases of the compound verbs the force of the prefixes has been indicated by reference by number to these prefixes as classified in the list printed at the end of the book. So far as I know the prefixes have not been so treated before, although the reader is clearly entitled to know how the compiler takes them. When the prefix retains a prepositional force this is indicated by printing the corresponding English preposition in italics, the case taken being stated. The principal suffixes are referred to by number in a similar way. (4) All parts of the verbs which are formed with any irregularity are recorded, with references to the passages in which they occur. These irregular parts, or as many of them as are required for guidance, are entered again in their alphabetical places, and are there parsed and referred to their leading verbs. An obelus (†) prefixed to a verb indicates that only the parts which are actually cited occur. In the cases of verbs not so marked, parts regularly formed occur in addition to any which are cited. (5) In the cases of the simple verbs there is given after the citation of parts a note of all the compounds of these verbs which occur. These compounds should be referred to, as additional parts and further illustrative senses will frequently be found under them. In the few cases where compounds occur but not the simple verb references are made from the compounds to each other. (6) In the explanations I have been solicitous to give rather exact than poetical equivalents. When the exact sense has been ascertained the reader will be able to clothe it in more poetical language for himself. I have been particularly anxious to avoid the abomination of "Wardour Street" English. (7) The books of the epics are referred to in the usual way by the twenty-four letters of the Greek alphabet, the capital letters being used for the books of the Iliad, and the small for those of the Odyssey. The references are always to be taken as exhaustive unless the contrary is indicated by the addition of "etc." It would, of course, have been possible to make the references exhaustive in all cases; but this would have greatly increased the size (and cost) of the book, and would not after all have been of much, if indeed it would have been of any, service. It is hoped that the reader will have the satisfaction of knowing that he has before him all the occurrences of a word or use in every case where this can be thought to be of importance. It is to be noted that in this matter of reference the epics are regarded separately. Thus reference in the form K 192: β 363, γ 254, δ 78, τ 492, ψ 26, etc., indicates that the word or use in question occurs once only in the Iliad, and five times and more in the Odyssey. (8) It was found to be impossible to exhibit intelligibly in the articles the very numerous constructions under εἰ (3) (4) (5), αἴ (2), and ἤν (1) (2), and the various corresponding forms of relative and conditional relative sentences. These have accordingly been brought together in a Table printed after the List of Prefixes, etc., reference being made to the Table by number from the body of the book. It may be noted that the references in the articles εἰ , αἴ, and ἤν and in the Table are exhaustive throughout. The commentaries of Dr. Leaf and Monro on the Iliad, and of Merry and Riddell on Odyssey I-XII, and Monro on Odyssey XIII-XXIV have been consulted. Of these Dr. Leaf's commentary is the fullest and has been the most helpful, and I desire to make special acknowledgements to it. My debt to Monro's Homeric Grammar will be obvious. For the old cruces such as ἤϊος, ἠλίβατος, μέροπες, νηγάτεος, χλούνης, and the rest, I have no fresh suggestions to make; and in the cases of such words, where the context gives no guidance, I have thought it best simply to say that the meaning is unknown. There are, of course, conjectures in abundance, but these cannot be discussed in a Lexicon where space is a serious consideration. It is to be borne in mind that the Homeric language had evidently a long history when the poet received it, and that it is quite possible that he took over some of the words from his predecessors without attaching any very definite meaning to them. Similar considerations apply to words denoting arms, pieces of armour, parts of chariots, dress, utensils, and the like. The poet had, of course, no personal knowledge of the times in which he placed his scenes, and was necessarily dependent for knowledge on authorities of some kind, good or bad, of which we know nothing. It may well be that he would have found as much difficulty as we find in explaining the exact nature of, say, the μίτρη or the θόλος, or in distinguishing between, say, a ἕλιξ and a κάλυξ, or a πείρινς and an ὑπερτερίη. My friend Mr. J. B. Douglas has very kindly gone over the work in proof, and has made many valuable suggestions. I owe and tender very grateful thanks to Mr. F. E. Webb, the printers' scholarly proof-reader, for the great care which he has bestowed on the proofs and for suggestions which he has made, and bear willing testimony to his accuracy and his untiring assiduity in a laborious task. I must, however, accept myself the ultimate responsibility for any literals that may be found. The references have all been checked by me in proof with the text, and I hope that little inaccuracy will be found. I do not doubt that the work is open to criticism in detail. It could hardly, indeed, be otherwise in the case of a single-handed attempt to deal afresh with a vocabulary so copious and so complicated as that of the epics. I can truly say, however, that I have spared no pains, and have consciously shirked no difficulty, in the effort to make a useful book. I did not undertake the very considerable labour which the compilation has entailed merely to help examination candidates or to assist in reading the epics as documents or as fields for philological study, although I trust that the Lexicon will be helpful for these purposes. My main hope has been, by making the reading of Homer easier, to bring to him readers who will read the epics as what above all things they are--as poems, as works of imagination. For such reading, translations being useless, an accurate and familiar knowledge of the Homeric language is the first essential. This knowledge is not to be acquired without hard, and possibly repulsive, work with grammar and dictionary; but though the way be long, the reward is sure. Let a man once acquire the power to read Homer as he reads Spenser or Milton, and he will have a possession which he would change for no other, an unfailing source of solace and of the purest pleasure. Homer is like Shakespeare in this, that he cannot be exhausted, that the more he is read the more there is found, and that while the effects are more and more felt, the means by which they are got remain more and more mysterious. The epics must be read as wholes, and not, as is too much the way, in books here and there. It will come to be realized more and more with each reading that under the smooth and apparently art-less surface there lie depths of supreme and conscious art. The man who has realized this has gone far to solve for himself the Homeric problem. R. J. C. February 1924. |
