6
spoken language of the author and his audience’ (p. 185; e.g.
Alfāẓ alMishna
, which includes
explanations in Arabic). Rav Saadia Gaon’s works are mentioned as some of the first
‘systematic dictionaries’ (p. 186–187). His
Egron
is typically regarded
as the first Hebrew
dictionary, the main purpose thereof being that of convincing poets to ‘use biblical words and
forms, with an emphasis on the rarer ones’ (pp. 186–187). Works by later lexicographers (e.g.
Menaḥem, Alfāsi, Ibn Janāḥ, Hanaguid) are also mentioned with great detail regarding their
purpose and structure/content characteristics in connection with earlier works (esp. Saadia’s).
Though less prevalent, post-biblical Hebrew dictionaries are also briefly referenced in this
chapter, whose
last sections are dedicated, respectively, to the ‘lexicography of grammar,
rhymes, homonyms, and synonyms’ (pp. 196–198), ‘definitions and their language’ (pp. 198),
‘etymology and comparative Semitic philology’ (pp. 198–199), and the ‘arrangement of entries’
(pp. 200–201).
In ‘The Turkic Languages and Persian to c. 1700,’ Marek Stachowski deploys a
carefully arranged diachronic account of the Persian and Turkic dictionaries, starting from the
beginnings of Persian lexicography (pp. 223–224) and later focusing on the potentially relevant
influence of the Arabic lexicographic tradition (pp. 230–232), as well as the presence of Persian
lexicography in India (pp. 232–234) and Europe (pp. 234–236). An insightful section is found
in the multicriteria comparison (in
terms of, e.g., aim and target, type of dictionary, or
continuation) which the author establishes between two of the earliest dictionaries in the Persian
and Turkic traditions, respectively—that by Asadī T̤ūsī and the one by Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī,
both from the eleventh century. The final sections of this chapter are dedicated to Turkic
lexicography, starting with the Codex Comanicus (pp. 236–237),
other Turkic and Ottoman
Turkish dictionaries (pp. 238–242), Ottoman Turkish transcription dictionaries (pp. 242–244),
and Meninski’s
Thesaurus
(pp. 244–246).
Within the late and medieval heritage of the Greco-Roman world, Stefano Valente’s
‘Byzantine Greek’ provides an interesting ‘journey over the thousand years of history of
Byzantine Greek lexicography’ (p. 265), which appears to have been intrinsically intertwined
with the—oftentimes scholarly—understanding of biblical and literary texts by pagan authors.
Lexicographical techniques and goals seem to undergo thorough revision in comparison with
the classical standards, even as ‘preservation and diffusion of the knowledge of the past [as
opposed to originality]’ remain the top priorities. Typologically speaking, one can find what
the author designates as ‘general lexica’ (pp. 249–255), ‘etymologica’ (pp. 255–260), and the
more classically inspired Atticist lexicography.
In the Latin sphere, in the chapter entitled
‘Medieval Latin Christendom,’ John Considine establishes a differentiation between Latin
‘early glossaries’ (e.g.
Liber glossarum
,
Glossarium Salomonis
) and ‘later dictionaries’ (e.g.
Elementarium
,
Panormia
/
Liber derivationum
), as he provides valuable
in-context examples
therefrom. Considine indicates that some of the ancient lexicographical texts ‘continued to be
read and copied in and beyond late antiquity’ (p. 268). However, not all the early glossaries
originated ‘exclusively in the glossing of texts, for they might draw on ancient lexical
collections such as the
Hermeneumata
wordlists and the
Expositio notarum
’ (p. 270). Considine
also touches on the fact that—as is commonplace in other civilisations—a number of glosses
relied on bilingualism for clarity purposes (e.g. Latin-vernacular, Latin-Celtic languages, Latin-
Germanic languages). In ‘Early Modern Western and Central Europe,’ Considine provides a
carefully knitted continuation to earlier chapters, as he focuses on the modern emergence of
Latin-Greek, Latin-Romance, and Latin-Germanic lexicographic works.
Partly based on
Renaissance postulates, the focus is set on classical Latin and Greek rather than their late or
medieval counterparts, as shown by the 1530s
Linguae Latinae thesaurus
and, to a lesser extent,
Calepino’s
Dictionarium
(1502). Throughout this time, theology continues to play a role in the
development and dissemination of lexicographic works, as do pedagogical purposes—
7
specifically in connection with language learning (e.g. 1611
Janua linguarum
, an introduction
to Latin which targeted Spanish speakers;
Thesaurus Graecae linguae
).
Multilingual pieces
appear to become increasingly prevalent, with virtually any combination of languages being
potentially encounterable. This holds especially true in the case of Romance languages, to
whose speakers Latin had been gradually becoming a foreign language (e.g., Nebrija’s 1495
Spanish-Latin dictionary, commonly regarded as ‘the first Renaissance dictionary of a
European vernacular’; Franciosini’s 1620
Vocabolario italiano e spagnolo
). Germanic
languages also appear to play a visible role in multilingual dictionaries (pp. 306–312).
2.3.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
