Oxford Latin Dictionary -

I'm afraid I cannot agree with those reviewers who underscore the excellence of this dictionary without any nuance. I'd like to point out that in the university where I'm not working at, in Belgium, many Latinists have in its desk the Lewis-Short, and when they need more detail they consult Forcellini or the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. The OLD is of course extraordinary in what regards very rare words, and makes very good use of the evidence of papyri; nevertheless, when it comes to more or less usual words, its advantage over the Lewis-Short seems to be much thinner.

Let me put it with some examples:
You're reading Horace, and you come across this verse: "frigidas noctes non sine multis insomnis lacrimis agit". You doubt about what "agere" means here and you look it up in the OLD. Before coming across with the meaning number 34, subdivision b, ("34. To spend [one's life]; b [other periods of time]"), you'll have easily spent twenty minutes. Even worse: meaning 35 doesn't seem to be so palpably different from the one you've just read ("35. To live one's life"). There are yet more subdivision, that don't seem to add anything substantial: "35: (also transf., esp. of places). b (w. pred. adjs.). c (w. locality indicated)." The main concern of the OLD, here and in other entry, seems to be taxonomy and not meaning. The authores want to classify and sub-classify to an extent that makes the distinctions useless, and the dictionary bulkier than it should (this space could have been used to make the definitions themselves longer and clearer). On occasion, however, they warn the reader. In "postis", for instance, they make clear in the second meaning that "this sense is not always clearly distinguishable in the example from sense 1". This is doubtlessly true; they should have added that these shades are almost never "clearly distinguishable". But this is not the case of "postis" only; it happens in virtually every long entry, and in many of the shorter ones too. A previous reviewer commented extensively on how often two, three or even more different senses are assigned, when it would have been much more user-friendly to put all of these together. In many cases, this excessive subdivision is not just an excess of subtlety, but a mistake, for it aims at putting apart what for Latin writers, but also for us, is rightly felt as only one meaning.
This is in my opinion the first problem: the obsession with classification, which is not even consistent in different parts of the dictionary (some words have much more sense than they reasonably should, as "ago", but some are just fine; I suspect that the first fascicules were much worse than the last ones, and "ago", of course, was already in the first fascicule).

The second problem is that examples are abundant, but they are utterly separated from the meaning of the words; they even appear in a smaller font, as in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. The problem is that, more often than not, this abundance of examples does not help you to see any clearer in the meaning of the word, because they are just an accumulation of instances when the same word is used, and, what is worse, often without any distinguishable shade of meaning. In the Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon, examples are perfectly integrated with the discussion on the meaning of the word itself, and they always illuminate the meaning; they are never, ever gratuitous. In the OLD, examples seem to be there for its own sake.

This leads to another questionable editorial decision: the actual space devoted to defining a word is very restricted. Take "nobilis": there are eight meanings, most of them with two or three sub-meanings, and yet all of these are exceedingly short; possibly some 200 words, all in all. Examples, on the other hand, are many: some 1000 words. I believe that examples are fundamental, but in a dictionary they should help illuminate the meaning of the word. Examples, on the other hand, are in 98 % of cases just thrown there, without any explanation whatever (which, again, is not the case in the Liddell-Scott). I seriously doubt many readers, however interested they may be in the meaning of the word in question, will browse twenty lines of Latin text, just to find the same shades time and again.

In short, this was not what I expected when I bought the OLD. I had been reading a lot of Latin poetry with the Lewis-Short, and thought I would invest some money to have the last word in Latin dictionaries. Needless to say, I was let down. If you want to understand the Latin text, I believe the Lewis-Short is still more useful.

It is also true that the OLD follows the latest lexicographical conventions, and has incorporated material from many sources absent in Lewis-Short. However, as regards the contents, it is difficult to assess if there has been any substantial progress. The proof that it has not simply superseded the Lewis-Short is that Oxford University Press, very sensibly, has not put the Lewis-Short out of press, and this is not, I believe, only because the Lewis-Short include some words from after 200 AD.

Very beautiful, very useful dictionary. Be warned, though, that not everything is as bright as it looks, and that this dictionary is definitely not the gem of scholarship and usefulness the Greek Liddell-Scott is.

Oxford Latin dictionary (1/1 people found this helpful)

I am told this is the one to buy over all the rest. It not only defines the words but gives you an insight into how the words are used too - invaluable time saver for those not in the know. Got this for my Sister-in-law after being recommended by her uncle who used it for academic historical research at Oxford University.

O.L.D. (1/1 people found this helpful)

Text magnificent, but page paper very thin. Is this because it is a cheaper Chinese print run?

Dictionary of Classical period: for Late Latin try... (9/10 people found this helpful)

As others have remarked, the Oxford Latin Dictionary (OLD) stops at 200 A.D., sensibly as words do change their meanings over time. However, many - most - purchasers of this rather expensive book would do well to add Souter's inexpensive A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A.D. to their purchase. While being what it says it is, a glossary and not a dictionary on the scale of the OLD which it supplements, this will take you to the end of Late Antiquity, to Boethius, Cassiodorus, Marcellinus Comes, the codes of Justinian, though not Bede and Paulus Diaconus, who fall just outside.

For Mediaeval Latin, though, you still need Du Cange (and you thought the OLD cost a bit...) or Niermeyer's Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus. British Mediaeval sources - like Bede - are covered by Latham's Revised Medieval Latin Word List: From British and Irish Sources.

More than £100 cheaper if you buy it from the USA (11/11 people found this helpful)

This beautiful, indispensable tome should be on the desk of every dedicated Latinist. However, the price is surely prohibitive.

But -- astonishingly -- you can order it (brand-new)from a US-based Marketplace seller for well over £100 less than the RRP (and if you search about a bit you can get it for under £100 all in).

How is it that a book edited and compiled in Oxford, published in Oxford and printed in Oxford can cost a British buyer £250 if they chose to buy it in Oxford, but if they go online and buy it from America (after it has been flown from the UK to an American wholesaler then back again) you can get it so much cheaper? Can anybody say "rip-off Britain" in Latin?

Oxford Latin Dictionary

Reader Reviews:

Think it over twice (0/1 people found this helpful)