Prefatory Remarks

Dictionarivm Voces Propemodvm Vniversas in autoribus latinæ linguæ probatis, ac uulgò receptis occurrentes Germanicè explicans, pro iuuentute Germanica primum in literis Tyrocinium faciente, fideliter & magno labore iam recens concinnatum / Ad Pvbem Germanicam Petrvs Dasypodivs. ..

[arrow up]

When the Herzog-August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel enquired whether I would be willing to cooperate on an online edition of Dasypodius' Dictionarium latinogermanicum (1535) which would link to their digitized copy of the first edition (, I was eager to do so. After all, Dasypodius' dictionary is one of the key texts in the development of German lexicography, and, I contend, in the development of the German language, and therefore deserves to be made accessible to a wider public. Moreover, the advantages of an internet publication are clear. There is no longer any sense in producing heavy, expensive reference books which may well be out of date as soon as they are printed, when a machine-readable substitute readily exists. Not only are internet publications available worldwide, in this case free of charge, they can also be modified when necessary, and the text they contain can be easily searched by users. So the task was to convert my existing edition which had been available online as a series of HTML files ( into a fully TEI-compatible text which would initially allow a full text search and parallel display of the text and the digitized photographs of the Wolfenbüttel copy. Subsequently, other more flexible search options could be added by extending the tagging, and this programmatic work could be applied to other early print dictionaries.

The fact that the initial stage has now been completed is due not only to the generosity of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, who allowed me to renew my fellowship for three months from March to May 2007, but also to the skill and patience of the staff at the Herzog-August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel, especially and principally Dr Thomas Stäcker, without whose ready help, encouragement, and technical expertise this project would never have come to fruition.

The original work on the electronic text was carried out during a six-month fellowship at the University of Bonn in 1990, also financed by the Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation, and I thank them warmly for their generous help then and their subsequent encouragement and support. My stay in Bonn allowed me to work closely with Professor Dr Werner Besch. To him and his colleagues, especially Prof. Dr. Klaus-Peter Wegera, now in Bochum, and Prof. Dr. Hans-Joachim Solms, now in Halle, I also express my sincere and enduring gratitude. My intention was to compare copies of each edition published before Dasypodius' death in 1559, but I had underestimated the size of the undertaking and the difficulty in obtaining reliable copies, as well as the problems associated with working with the texts. It is easy to forget just how far computing technology, the internet and digital photography - as well as our knowledge of 16th-century lexicography - have advanced over the last fifteen years. Time and resources eventually reduced the edition to a text based on the Strasbourg copy of the first edition of Dasypodius' dictionary (C 148271) and the published facsimile edition of 1536 (de Smet 1974). Of course, now that the text has been converted to XML, other editions may be added in the future, so my initial intention might one day be realized.

Dasypodius the man
[arrow up]

Of Dasypodius' life we know practically nothing. Not even his German name is certain, although of the possible alternatives — Hasenfuß, Rauchfuß, Rauchbein, Hase or Hasenfratz — it was probably the last mentioned, as on the evidence of the telephone directory there is still a family of that name living in Ueßlingen near Frauenfeld which is more than likely where he was born around 1490, whereas none of the other names elicited any notable hits. This was also Hartmann's opinion (1957). After a period as a curate in Frauenfeld, he was appointed to the Latin School attached to the Fraumunster in Zürich in June 1527. Contemporary letters (e.g. those from and to Bullinger: suggest that he was well thought of in Zwingli's circle, so he was probably one of the clergy who embraced the Reformation early. In 1530, he returned to Frauenfeld as a reformed minister and schoolmaster. It was here that his son Conrad (1532-1600) was born to him and his wife. However, the family had to leave Frauenfeld after the Battle of Kappel in 1531, where Zwingli himself lost his life. It was not until 1533 that a new post was found for him on the recommendation of Thomas (1499-1567) and Ambrosius Blaurer (1492-1564) — Martin Bucer (1491-1551) appointed him head of the Latin School at the Carmelite convent to succeed Otto Brunfels (1488-1534).

During the next two years (1533 to early 1535), he compiled his Dictionarium latinogermanicum (Straßburg: Rihel, 1535), essentially a dictionary of Latin with definitions largely in German organized on alphabetical and morphological principles. It was clearly a success for the publisher, as the second edition appeared in 1536, and was enlarged to include a Latin-German thematic glossary and German-Latin indices to both Latin-German sections. This four-part structure, based on the ideas of the Spanish humanist Antonius Nebrissensis (Elio Antionio de Nebrija / Lebrija, 1444-1532), whose dictionaries (1492; see now Colón and Soberanas 1979) Dasypodius must therefore have known, was an innovation on the German market, and became probably the most used 16th-century school dictionary. The print history of the work has yet to be clarified in detail, as some copies of the work have been incorrectly dated, but, in the present state of our knowledge, some 29 editions were produced up to 1600, followed by a further seven in the 17th century as well as seventeen editions of the so-called Dasypodius catholicus (Cologne, 1633), which was reprinted as late as 1709.

In 1538, Dasypodius moved to the famous Gymnasium Argentinense, under the headship of Johann Sturm (1507-1589), to teach classics in the upper forms. His choice of lemmata in his Dictionarium shows he was also interested in Greek, and he subsequently produced a Greek-Latin lexicon for schools (Straßburg 1539). The foreword to his Dictionarium latinogermanicum shows that his main aim was to introduce his pupils to the pure sources of classical Latin, to which end he used Vives' principles of translation theory and rendered Latin terms using German loan translations and loan creations. This pedagogical technique was to prove important in assessing Dasypodius' significance in the history of German.

Surviving copies of Dasypodius' dictionary
[arrow up]

Claes (1977) remains an indispensable reference for the location of 16th-century copies of Dasypodius, but it has now been supplemented by the VD16 ( and the discussion in Müller (2001). For the 17th century, Jones (2000) provides reliable information derived from inspection on site or photographs which must now be correlated with the excellent VD17 ( As to the determination of how many editions were actually printed, this must remain a matter of careful correlation and interpretation of the available evidence, and there is clearly a cost-benefit equation for every individual researcher. Müller (2001:69) reckons "annähernd fünfzig" and it is hard to disagree with this estimate on the basis of the information available to me at present, encapsulated in the following summary.

  1. 1535 (VD16 D243; Claes 1977:90, Nr. 341)
  2. 1536a (VD16 D244; Claes 1977:93, Nr. 350)
  3. 1536b (VD16 D 245; Claes 1977:93, Nr. 351)
  4. 1537 (VD16 ZV 4282; Claes 1977:94, Nr. 355)
  5. 1537/ (1538) (VD16 D 246; Claes 1977:96, Nr. 360 ??)
  6. 1537/(1539) (VD16 ZV 4283; Claes 1977:95, Nr. 359)
  7. 1540: (VD16 D 247; Claes 1977:99, Nr. 373)
  8. 1541 (VD16 D248; Claes 1977:101, Nr. 384)
  9. 1541 (VD16 ZV 4284)
  10. 1543 (VD16 D249; Claes 1977:105, Nr. 396)
  11. 1544 (VD16 ZV 4285; Claes 1977:106, Nr. 400)
  12. 1547 (VD16 D250)
  13. 1547 (VD16 ZV 4286; Claes 1977:109, Nr. 412)
  14. 1548 (VD16 D 251; Claes 1977:109, Nr 413)
  15. 1554 (VD16 D 252; )
  16. 1564 (VD16 ZV 4287)
  17. 1565 (VD16 D 254)
  18. 1569 (VD16 D 253)
  19. 1585 (VD16 ZV 4279)
  20. 1585 (VD16 ZV 4280)
  21. 1592 (VD16 ZV 4281)
  22. 1596 (VD 16 D255)
  23. 1599 (VD16 D 256)
  24. 1600-1650 (Jones 2000:260, Nr. 463)
  25. 1600-1650 (Jones 2000:261, Nr. 464) Jones saw a photograph of the Kevelaer copy, but St John's College, Cambridge (Upper Library) also has a copy (shelfmark: G.10.8)
  26. 1614-24 (Jones 2000:261, Nr. 465)
  27. 1616-25 (Jones 2000:262, Nr. 466)
  28. 1625 (VD17 3:005093L)
  29. ca. 1625 (VD17 3:005095A)
  30. 1626 (VD17 12:129752R; Jones 2000:262-3, Nr. 467
  31. 1625-54? (Jones 2000:263, no. 468)
  32. 1633 (Jones 2000:264, no. 469)
  33. 1634 (Jones 2000:264, no. 470)
  34. 1642/3 (Jones 2000:266, no. 471)
  35. 1642 (Jones 2000:266, no. 472)
  36. 1643-7? (Jones 2000:267, no. 473)
  37. 1653 (VD17 12:130121V; Jones 2000:268, no. 474)
  38. 1653 Jones 2000:269, no. 475)
  39. 1653 (Jones 2000:269, no. 476)
  40. 1660 (VD17 12:129407E; Jones 2000:270, no. 477)
  41. 1667 (VD17 23:314023V; (Jones 2000:271, no. 478)
  42. 1667 (VD17 12:628143R
  43. 1670 (VD17 1:042181U; Jones 2000:271, no. 479)
  44. 1670 (VD17 12:628146P)
  45. 1676 (VD17 547:652228E; Jones 2000:272, no. 480)
  46. 1682 (Jones 2000:273, no. 481)
  47. 1692 (VD17 1:042183K; Jones 2000:273, no. 482)
  48. 1694 (Jones 2000:274, no. 483)
  49. 1694 (Jones 2000:275, no. 484)
  50. 1694 (Jones 2000:275, no. 485)
  51. 1709 (Verdeyen 1939:1050)

There is some argument about the identification of editions. Jones remarks that other 17th-century editions of Dasypodius may well exist: perhaps this internet edition will encourage further librarians or collectors to come forward.

Adaptations and Use of Dasypodius by other Lexicographers
[arrow up]

Verdeyen (1939:987-1018) shows how Dasypodius influenced the work of the Dutch lexicographer Antonius Schorus of Hoogstraaten. There are probably nine editions of this dictionary (1542, 1546, 1556, 1557, 1567a, 1567b, 1569a, 1569b and 1573). The Czech lexicographer Thomas Reschel produced two editions of the Dictionarium Latinobohemicum (1560, 1562) based on Dasypodius' dicitionary, and Albertus Molnar's Dictionarium Latinoungaricum (Nuremberg 1604) is based on Theodosius Rihel's alphabetical revision of the dictionary (see Müller 2001:70).

Müller (2001:75ff.) sees Serranus's Dictionarium latinogermanicum as essentially a précis („erweist sich [...] im wesentlichen als Dasypodius-Epitome“), but I would prefer (West 2003) to see it as a more independent work. If we compare the number of words in Dasypodius's Latin-German alphabetical-morphological first section (ca. 50,000) with the number in Serranus's dictionary (ca. 42,000), the idea of a précis is probably inappropriate, and may be due to the systematic way he excises Dasypodius's Greek lemmata and proper names. Although it appears that, of those that are adopted, a substantial proportion of Dasypodius's lemmata and definitions are adopted without change (ca. 21%), rather more are edited in one way or another (ca. 36%) and the rest either show significant divergences or (ca. 16%) use different Latin lemmata and different German definitions. Despite these often overlooked differences, Serranus is probably the closest to Dasypodius in terms of lexical content. Wetekamp's list (1980:121-139) gives some idea of Dasypodius's connections with Serranus. However, a systematic comparison of nouns which Dasypodius might have created (see below) — reducing the likelihood that they were derived from some other source — reveals that Serranus took over a large number, normally with the wording of the original definition (further information can be found at Surprisingly, he rejects some Dasypodean creations such as ausnahme, bargeld, brülle, and brumler, but there are others which are taken over with minimal editing, such as bimsenstein (Dasypodius: bimsstein), blitzer (Dasypodius: blitzger). Maaler's dictionary also proved a fruitful repository for possible Dasypodean neologisms, a few such being: alat, arzneimacher, arzneitrank, ausspület, bangenkraut (which turns up in Schuppius, Lehrreiche Schriften, Frankf. 1684), beile, bekommnis, buchspange, burre, auflosung, auasstecher, bargeld, bedauern, beschlussrede, and fechtplatz. Isolated cases of the acceptance of characteristically Dasypodean words can be found in Alberus (1540: bildweber, bücherdieb), Fischart (augenblender, ausputzung, begütigung), Frisius (1556: dreiackersverkäufer), Junius (1577: bergzinnober, betträger), Frisius (1590: buchkensterlein), Stieler (1680: darbieter), Adelung (balkenband) and Frisch, who uses Dasypodius explicitly as oner of his sources (öläpfel, dechsel, bangeln, es battet, bätzgen, beye, benne, and many others). No doubt systematic comparison will reveal further connections, but this work remains to be done.

The Wolfenbüttel Dasypodius
[arrow up]

The Herzog-August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel has a copy of the first edition of March 1535 (n-77-4f-helmst-2; the pagination agrees with that listed as no. 341 by Claes 1977:91). It has been digitized, including the covers, in 470 images and appears to be in original condition. For the avoidance of confusion, reference is made to these images in the introductory remarks rather than to the page numbers, most of which have to be reconstructed anyway, or to the numbered lemmata of the HTML version of the edition.

The Wolfenbüttel copy has suffered from some worm activity, but the text is generally easily legible and I was able to check most doubtful readings against photographs of the Strasbourg copy (C 148271). There are places, e.g. from image 00306 to 00337, and from 00421 to 00449, where the print has faded and / or shows through from the other side of the paper, impairing the legibility somewhat, and here the Strasbourg copy provided invaluable assistance, especially regarding the reading of diacritics. However, it is inevitable that some uncertainties remain.

It has 6,408 entries, of which 28 are deleted in the 1536 edition, or merged with other entries. Dasypodius's intention was to introduce his pupils to Classical Latin, but he does not quite manage to restrict himself to those words most frequently used by the best authors. Late Latin forms such as Abbas, Anthropomorphitæ, and the like, will hardly have been on the lips of Pliny and Terence. The choice of headwords is noteworthy first for the proportion which reflect Dasypodius' interest in Greek. Of course, there are some Greek words which were established in Latin, such as Acanthis (Greek ἀκανθίς) "a small singing bird" or Acanthus (Greek ἄκανθος) "the plant bear's foot", but there are many others which he simply adopts, such as Acmon (Greek ἄκμων), Acropolis (Greek ἀκρόπολις), and Ornis (Greek ὄρνις). The latter are usually marked with "latinè", "lat." , "græca uox est" and occasionally "autem" and the regular Latin expression. As educated Romans usually spoke Greek, the inclusion of such items may well have had a point, and been useful from a purely educational point of view, but this was one category of word which Serranus excised from his adaptation of Dasypodius' dictionary, so his policy was clearly not approved of universally among his contemporaries. The second noteworthy feature of the choice of headwords is the number of proper names, of both famous personages, such as Adonis, Aeneas, and Aesopus, peoples such as Allobroges, Andabatae, and significant locations, such as Aetna, Alexandrειa and Antiochειa.

Grammatical commentary on the headwords is unsystematic when compared to modern dictionaries but the information supplied was probably sufficient for most purposes. Pronunciation was clearly important, often indicated by pen. pro. / penul. pro. / penulti. pro. (= penultima producta) or penul. lon. (= penultima longa) to show that the penultimate vowel is long and therefore carries the stress, or pen. cor. (= penultima correpta) to show that the penultimate vowel was short so that the stress would move to the antepenultimate. The amount of morphological information depends on the class of word being described. First and second declension nouns are not usually marked, but the corresponding adjectives almost invariably are (e.g. Mutilus, a, um). The genitive singular of third declension nouns is often given, e.g. Fides, fidis, Mirmillo, onis and Muto, onis, especially when Fourth declension nouns such as Acus are marked as such, as are pluralia tanta such as Minæ, and Liberi. Where there is room for confusion (e.g. Limus, substanti. vs. Limus, a, um, adiectiuū; or Os, oris vs. Os, ossis) appropriate information is supplied. Prepositions, conjunctions and adverbs are usually marked: Iam, Ne, and Tenus are just three of the copious examples.

Verbs are inevitably marked for inflectional type (e.g. Temero, as, Teneo, es; Tego, is, Gradior, eris, etc.), but the information given is often insufficient to form the whole paradigm. For example, the entry for Tero, is, Jch zerreibe [...] does not give the perfect form (trīui) or the supine (trītum).

The definitions appear in German, sometimes with Latin commentary, for example: Aes, aeris, Ertz kupffer / oder allerley metal. Item pro pecunia sæpe accipitur; or Aestus, quar. decli. Hitz / werme. Et per meta. Begire, cupiditas, libido. Frequently, two, three or even more German expressions appear in the definition of a single Latin word. As West (1993) showed, these alternative forms are not simply regional synonyms. They reflect the polysemy of Latin words, provide additional information to explain the Latin lemmata, dismabiguate German words and reveal competing spellings and derivations. On the other hand, it appears that such German alternatives were not listed in random order. Forms of greater relative text frequency tended to be placed first, especially if these were forms likely to be familiar in Upper German.

Derivations often follow the headword (for example, Alemanni, Die teuschen. Alemannia, Dz teuschland). Frequently, derivations were added in the revised edition: for example, Amo [...] amator [...] amatorius [...] appear in 1535, but the 1536a edition adds amicus [...] amicitia [...] inimicitia [...] amica [...] amabilis [...] abamo, deamo [...] redamo. As word formation processes are notoriously irregular, it is impossible to generalize about the range of derivations added to particular types of headword.

In his preface, Dasypodius mentions the copious use of quotations, not only so that the reader might feel more secure, but also so that the use of a particular word can be made plain. In fact, there are not only straight quotations, but also references to authors to support a collocation (e.g. Decorticare canabim Apud Pliniū, Hanff reitten oder reschen), and general references to groups of texts such as the poets or the rhetoricians, or to peoples such as the Greeks or Persians.

As to which authors are quoted or referred to in this way, Terence is the most frequent (124 citations), followed by Cicero (99), Plautus (29), Pliny(24) , Vergil (14) and Horace (7). The figures refer to occurrences in this edition, not specifically in 1535, and a substantial proportion were added or marked as quotations in the following year. It would be interesting to see how many of the quotations are genuine and where they come from, as this may well have a bearing on the question of Dasypodius' source material, but this work has yet to be undertaken.

Many quotations are simply examples of usage. For instance, under Alo, Jch ernere [...] we have Exercitatio alit uires, Vbung meret die krefft. with no attribution. Frequently, similarly unattributed phrases are given, for example Animus [...] is followed by Ex animi sententia, Nach willen / nach wunsch. Ex animi gratia, Von ergetzlicheyt wegen, etc. It remains to be seen how many of these turn out to be attributable to a known source.

Editorial practice
[arrow up]

As indicated above, the basis for the edition is the Wolfenbüttel copy, supplemented where necessary by photographs of the Strasbourg copy procured for the original project. As it is intended as a bridge to the printed text, the transcription preserves the original spelling with the following exceptions, some of which result from the impracticality of rendering them when the original electronic transciption was prepared in 1990:

Encoding practice
[arrow up]

In terms of tagging, interim practice has been to mark the headword as <entry> and the rest of the entry as <def>. This does not preclude finer distinctions being made at some future date. Users who are irritated by this are asked to remember that the original electronic version was prepared and used as a primary source text for Early Modern German rather than as a dictionary of Latin.

Interpolations from 1536 (marked <rdg wit="#ed_1536a">) were included if they were considered to be lexicographically relevant. In practice, this means any additions to the wording of the text or any alterations which might imply a different lexeme. It is this second categoty which may require further elucidation. Alterations in spelling were not noted: the difference between Aestimo, Jch schetze (1535) and Aestimo, Ich schaͤtze (1536a) does not imply two lexemes {SCHÄTZEN}1 and {SCHÄTZEN}2. On the other hand, the spelling difference between Stupor [...] erstunung (1535) vs. Stupor [...] erstumung (1536a) does imply two distinct lexemes {ERSTAUNUNG} and {ERSTUMMUNG}, so this instance was noted. In addition, all alterations which imply distinct word formation patterns were noted: for example, Acedia [...] Faulheyt (1535) vs. Acedia [...] Faulkeyt (1536a) may well reflect two different word formation patterns in {heit} and {keit} respectively (unfortunately, the spelling does not always allow us to distinguish these). Moreover, spacing can be important when applied to compounds. In New High German, compounds are written without a space between compositional elements, but in Early New High German this convention had not become established. In some cases, such as Anaglyptes [...] bildgraber (1535) vs. Anagyples [...] bild graber (1536a), there is little difficulty in reading a compound despite a space between the elements: the form bild graber is unlikely to be a phrase, as it would violate the patterns of German syntax. However, the reading is more problematic in cases such as Gangræna, Faul fleisch. (1535) vs. Gangræna, Faulfleisch (1536a). Has the phrase we see in the earlier edition really become a compound? It is impossible to provide a sure answer, so all spacings or lack of spacings which might imply the existence of compounds were noted. Users of the edition will doubtless draw their own conclusions in individual cases.

Any portions of the text deleted in the 1536 edition were marked <rdg wit="#ed_1535">, apart from deleted lemmata, which were marked <entry n="#ed_1535"><form><orth>. Mutatis mutandis, added lemmata were marked <entry n="#ed_1536a"><form><orth>.

Abbreviations which cannot be rendered as characters in UTF-8 were expanded and marked <expan></expan>. Apparently erroneous passages were marked by <corr></corr>.

The importance of the text for Germanists
[arrow up]

My interest in Dasypodius' dictionary, which dates from the late 1970s, was precisely in the context of his importance for the history of the German language. An intriguing sentence in König (1978:101), to which my friend Mrs Gabriele Walsh drew my attention, refers to the possible contribution of early modern dictionaries such as that of Dasypodius to the development of the New High German standard. In view of the long print history of the work, Dasypodius' dictionary seemed a suitable text on which to test this hypothesis. My method involved listing the German nouns in the Latin-German alphabetical section of de Smet's (1974) facsimile of the 1536 edition, which was readily available, and, by filtering out words attested before 1535, isolating those which might be attested in Dasypodius' dictionary for the first time. These possible Dasypodean neologisms might then be used to gauge Dasypodius' influence on the later language by seeing to what extent they were used by other lexicographers and other writers.

Having been used to dealing with a few dozen words characteristic of a given author -- even Lutheran neologisms are not very numerous (von Polenz 2000:234) -- the results were quite astounding. Some 7,107 nouns were listed, of which no fewer than 1,924 appeared, on the basis of comparison with the standard reference works and the data then held in Trier and Heidelberg for the Middle High German and Early New High German dictionary projects respectively, and also with copious lexicographical data in Würzburg and Bonn, to be attested in Dasypodius' dictionary for the first time. The sheer number of possible creations suggests that Dasypodius may have been very creative, although, as his intention was to teach his pupils Latin, this may well have been unintentional.

Of course, it is advisable to treat these figures with a degree of caution. The description of the German lexicon in the early modern period was even less ideal then than it is now, and much uncertainty surrounds the identification of the earliest written attestations of words. However, every then available source of information was tapped, and the list has stood for some twenty years now without any serious deletions. So while it is probably more prudent to view it, not as a definitive list of Dasypodean creations, but as a maximal list in which a larger or smaller set of Dasypodius' neologisms may be found, a view which ascribes such a list simply to inadequacies in our reference works (Müller 2001:68 fn.) is unlikely to be tenable. Naturally, confidence is higher when there is some sort of formal dependence on the Latin, as he may well have used German calques on Latin words as a form of aid to memory. On the other hand, dialect or loan words are unlikely to have been coined by Dasypodius, even though he may have been the first to use them in print. On this basis, words such as dirlas "cornum", burre "gnaphalon" or camelot "undulata uestis" will have correspondingly low probative value, whereas ableser "legulus", abmanung "dehortatio", abwieger "librator" are more likely to be genuine neologisms. One could argue, however, as has been argued for Luther, that words which become particularly associated with an author, even though not invented by him (or her) may be presented as evidence of lexicological influence.

As for the question of how the 1,924 possible neologisms fared in the language as a whole, I found, by comparing the list with the standard reference works, that 820 appeared to have achieved no currency outside the early editions of Dasypodius' own dictionary: examples are billigmachung, (see Wetekamp 1980:121-139). A further 554 appeared in other dictionaries, or in later editions and adaptations of Dasypodius' dictionary, and can therefore be deemed to have been acceptable to other lexicographers. A similar number (555) were found in more general use, although here again the evidence is circumstantial as it is almost always impossible to establish a connection between Dasypodius' dictionary and any instance of usage. We are nevertheless left with the impression of a major, if unintentional, lexical innovator who appears to have made a substantial contribution to the German lexicon, and this impression will stand until substantial new sources of German lexicographical material are accessed.

So which Modern German nouns are ascribable to Dasypodius? Bearing all the difficulties in mind, there are some 105 words which have survived in an unbroken tradition down to the present day, although some may admittedly seem less current than others:

Ableser, Abscheulichkeit, Ackerfurche, Adelsstand, Adlerträger, Angeklagte, Aufstehen, Augur, Bargeld, Bauernhof, Baukunst, Bedauern, Bimsstein, Brotkasten, Chamäleon, Eidschwur, Einkäufer, Ernährung, Eroberung, Erschaffer, Erzieher, Fechtmeister, Feldherr, Fingerring, Folterung, Frauengemach, Freigelassene, Fürstenhaus, Fürstensohn, Gastfreiheit, Geschäftigkeit, Gestalter, Glätter, Glatthobel, Gottesverehrung, Haarnadel, Hässlichkeit, Halbinsel, Handlinien, Herrenschatz, Herrin, Hülsenfrucht, Imperator, Konsonant, Kornsichel, Kotz, Krähenauge, Krampfader, Kuhmilch, Lagerung, Landrat, Langeweile, Lastschiff, Lebkuchenbäcker, Leere, Lernen, Lötung, Missgeburt, Mühseligkeit, Nachstellung, Nachtgespenst, Neusatz, Niederträchtigkeit, Obelisk, Oberarzt, Obsthurde, Ohrenweh, Passport, Poltergeist, Ratserkenntnis, Raubvogel, Rechtschreibung, Rechtshandel, Ruderstange, Salatkraut, Schädigung, Schiffschnabel, Schiller, Schirmherr, Schlangenhaut, Schlichthobel,Schmachrede, Schmerbauch, Schreibstube, Schrotsäge, Schusterwerkstatt, Schwätzerei, Schwertfechter, Sinnlosigkeit, Sonnenaufgang, Sonnenfinsternis, Sonnenschirm, Sonnenuhr, Speiserohr, Stattlichkeit, Substantiv, Überschwemmung, Unbeständigkeit, Verblendung, Verdammte, Vergeudung, Verkleinerung, Verleumdung, Verlobung, Versenkung, Verteidiger, Wolfsgebiss, Zimbelschläger, Zuführung, Zuordnung, Zusammenziehung, Zuschauer, Zwerchbalken.

For a discussion of the other words, categories and problems, see West (1989:257-402). It is not difficult to imagine the mechanism by which such words found their way into the language: small boys are asked to translate Latin texts into their native language, and use Dasypodius' dictionary as a reference work. Not realizing that many of the German renditions of the Latin words are in fact confected, they take them as the normal word for the concept indicated by the Latin, so the German term becomes a regular part of their vocabulary. In time, these small boys become educated men who pass on their vocabulary to others.

[arrow up]

My original intention was to produce a developmental edition of Dasypodius' dictionary, an aim which this electronic version finally makes possible. Indeed, it is now evolutionary in ways I could not imagine twenty years ago, as other scholars may add additional tags for whatever purpose they choose. In any case, users are positively encouraged to report typographical errors, make suggestions and put forward comments which will be of benefit to the community as a whole.

[arrow up]